SCOPING OPINION

Proposed M4 Junctions 3 to 12:

Smart Motorway

September 2014

Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 4

3.0 EIA APPROACH AND TOPIC AREAS ...... 144

4.0 OTHER INFORMATION ...... 266

APPENDIX 1 – LIST OF CONSULTEES

APPENDIX 2 – RESPONDENTS TO CONSULTATION AND COPIES OF REPLIES

APPENDIX 3 – PRESENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is the Scoping Opinion (the Opinion) provided by the Secretary of State in respect of the content of the Environmental Statement for the proposed M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway.

This report sets out the Secretary of State’s opinion on the basis of the information provided in The Highways Agency’s (‘the applicant’) report entitled M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report August 2014 (‘the Scoping Report’). The Opinion can only reflect the proposals as currently described by the applicant.

The Secretary of State has consulted on the Scoping Report and the responses received have been taken into account in adopting this Opinion. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the topic areas identified in the Scoping Report encompass those matters identified in Schedule 4, Part 1, paragraph 19 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended).

The Secretary of State draws attention both to the general points and those made in respect of each of the specialist topic areas in this Opinion. The main potential issues identified are:

 Air Quality  Landscape  Nature Conservation  Noise and Vibration  Effects on all travellers  Road Drainage and the Water Environment  Combined and Cumulative Effects

Matters are not scoped out unless specifically addressed and justified by the applicant, and confirmed as being scoped out by the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State notes the potential need to carry out an assessment under the Habitats Regulations1.

1 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)

Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Background

1.1 On 11 August 2014, the Secretary of State received the Scoping Report submitted by The Highways Agency under Regulation 8 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (SI 2263) (as amended) (the EIA Regulations) in order to request a scoping opinion for the proposed M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway (the proposed development). This Opinion is made in response to this request and should be read in conjunction with the applicant’s Scoping Report.

1.2 The applicant has formally provided notification under Regulation 6(1)(b) of the EIA Regulations that it proposes to provide an Environmental Statement (ES) in respect of the proposed development. Therefore, in accordance with Regulation 4(2) (a) of the EIA Regulations, the proposed development is determined to be EIA development.

1.3 The EIA Regulations enable an applicant, before making an application for an order granting development consent, to ask the Secretary of State to state in writing their formal opinion (a ‘scoping opinion’) on the information to be provided in the environmental statement (ES).

1.4 Before adopting a scoping opinion the Secretary of State must take into account:

(a) the specific characteristics of the particular development; (b) the specific characteristics of the development of the type concerned; and (c) environmental features likely to be affected by the development’. (EIA Regulation 8 (9))

1.5 This Opinion sets out what information the Secretary of State considers should be included in the ES for the proposed development. The Opinion has taken account of:

i the EIA Regulations

ii the nature and scale of the proposed development

iii the nature of the receiving environment, and

iv current best practice in the preparation of environmental statements.

1 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

1.6 The Secretary of State has also taken account of the responses received from the statutory consultees (see Appendix 2 of this Opinion). The matters addressed by the applicant have been carefully considered and use has been made of professional judgement and experience in order to adopt this Opinion. It should be noted that when it comes to consider the ES, the Secretary of State will take account of relevant legislation and guidelines (as appropriate). The Secretary of State will not be precluded from requiring additional information if it is considered necessary in connection with the ES submitted with that application when considering the application for a development consent order (DCO).

1.7 This Opinion should not be construed as implying that the Secretary of State agrees with the information or comments provided by the applicant in their request for an opinion from the Secretary of State. In particular, comments from the Secretary of State in this Opinion are without prejudice to any decision taken by the Secretary of State (on submission of the application) that any development identified by the applicant is necessarily to be treated as part of a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP), or associated development, or development that does not require development consent.

1.8 Regulation 8(3) of the EIA Regulations states that a request for a scoping opinion must include:

(a) ‘a plan sufficient to identify the land; (b) a brief description of the nature and purpose of the development and of its possible effects on the environment; and (c) such other information or representations as the person making the request may wish to provide or make’. (EIA Regulation 8 (3))

1.9 The Secretary of State considers that this has been provided in the applicant’s Scoping Report.

The Secretary of State’s Consultation

1.10 The Secretary of State has a duty under Regulation 8(6) of the EIA Regulations to consult widely before adopting a scoping opinion. A full list of the consultation bodies is provided at Appendix 1. The list has been compiled by the Secretary of State under their duty to notify the consultees in accordance with Regulation 9(1)(a). The applicant should note that whilst the Secretary of State’s list can inform their consultation, it should not be relied upon for that purpose.

2 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

1.11 The list of respondents who replied within the statutory timeframe and whose comments have been taken into account in the preparation of this Opinion is provided at Appendix 2 along with copies of their comments, to which the applicant should refer in undertaking the EIA.

1.12 The ES submitted by the applicant should demonstrate consideration of the points raised by the consultation bodies. It is recommended that a table is provided in the ES summarising the scoping responses from the consultation bodies and how they are, or are not, addressed in the ES.

1.13 Any consultation responses received after the statutory deadline for receipt of comments will not be taken into account within this Opinion. Late responses will be forwarded to the applicant and will be made available on the Planning Inspectorate’s website. The applicant should also give due consideration to those comments in carrying out the EIA.

Structure of the Document

1.14 This Opinion is structured as follows:

Section 1 Introduction Section 2 The proposed development Section 3 EIA approach and topic areas Section 4 Other information.

This Opinion is accompanied by the following Appendices:

Appendix 1 List of consultees Appendix 2 Respondents to consultation and copies of replies Appendix 3 Presentation of the environmental statement.

3 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

2.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Introduction

2.1 The following is a summary of the information on the proposed development and its site and surroundings prepared by the applicant and included in their Scoping Report. The information has not been verified and it has been assumed that the information provided reflects the existing knowledge of the proposed development and the potential receptors/resources.

The Applicant’s Information

Overview of the proposed development

2.2 The proposed development is for an improvement scheme for the M4 Motorway from Junction 3 (Hayes – just east of Heathrow Airport) to Junction 12 ( – just west of Reading) a distance of about 50km. It proposes to make permanent use of the hard shoulder as a running lane (referred to as all lane running (ALR)) to increase capacity of the motorway. The use of the hard shoulder would be continuous through junctions - this is known as Through Junction Running (TJR) - unless there are safety reasons why this cannot be achieved.

2.3 Five lane carriageways are proposed between J4 and J4b (currently four lanes) to provide sufficient capacity for traffic exiting/joining the main carriageway whilst enabling TJR at J4. Four lane carriageways and a hard shoulder are proposed between J4b and J5 (already present).

2.4 New signs and signals are proposed which would provide drivers with information regarding conditions on the motorway; lane closures; and when and where variable speed limits are in place.

Description of the site and surrounding area

The Application Site

2.5 The M4 motorway is the main strategic route in the south of . It runs from London through to Wales and carries over 130,000 vehicles per day in places.

2.6 The location of the proposed development is illustrated on Inset 1: Plan of Scheme Extents of the Scoping Report. An accompanying document referred to as Figure 1, supports the Scoping Report and contains 22x A3 sheets showing the proposed development area in greater detail.

4 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

2.7 There is no specific chapter in the Scoping Request setting out the details of the surrounding area. Therefore in order to try to identify this information, reference has been made in this Scoping Opinion to the individual topic based sections.

2.8 A number of watercourses pass under the proposed development, the majority of these are culverted and identified in Figure 1. The site is underlain by a number of aquifers: including localised areas of Principal aquifer comprising river terrace deposits and alluvium between Junction 3 and 5 and localised Secondary A aquifer near Junction 5 (paragraph 6.10.9 of the Scoping Report).

2.9 A number of Public Rights of Way (PRoW) are located in the study area on overbridges or underbridges and are identified on Figure 1. National Cycle Routes 4, 23 and 61 run through the site and in the surrounding area.

The Surrounding Area

2.10 There is a wide range of uses of the surrounding area.

2.11 The following uses are identified within the Scoping Report as sensitive receptors within 1km of the proposed development:

 37,860 residential properties

 29 schools

 2 colleges for further education

 21 places of worship

 6 community centres

 1 hospital

 2 Sites of Special Scientific Interest

 1 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (North Wessex Downs)

2.12 Other uses in the surrounding area are Heathrow airport, areas used for leisure and recreation facilities, such as country parks and golf clubs as well as open countryside and agricultural land. A wider road network extends off from the M4.

2.13 Fifty two cultural heritage assets have been identified within a 250m buffer zone of either side of the M4 carriage way comprising one Scheduled Monument, 42 listed buildings (14 were identified as being particularly sensitive), two registered parks and gardens, and seven conservation areas as well as evidence of archaeological activity dating back to the prehistoric period. The location of these features is illustrated in Figure 1.

5 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

2.14 Figure 1 also identifies a number of areas of ancient woodland located adjacent or near to the carriageway.

2.15 The M4 Motorway passes through or adjacent to The North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) to the west of Junction 12 as identified on Figure 1 (Sheets 2 and 3).

2.16 Pincents Kiln Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), designated for its geological interest, lies within 200m of the proposed development (paragraph 6.1.10 of the Scoping Report).

2.17 The closest internationally designated sites are the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and the South West London Waterbodies SPA/ Ramsar site.

2.18 The Scoping Report (paragraph 6.10.6) identifies a number of ponds, reservoirs, lakes and watercourses within 100m of the application site.

Alternatives

2.19 Section 3 of the Scoping Report sets out a summary of a series of stages which have evolved into the proposed development currently being considered. Details of the alternative considered are not provided nor is it stated how alternatives would be considered in the environmental impact assessment.

Description of the proposed development

2.20 An outline of the proposed development is provided in Section 1.1 of the Scoping Report, with further details set out in Section 2.

2.21 Section 2 of the Scoping Report has identified the following components with the proposed development:

 Carriageway alignment and footprint  Signage and gantries and technology  Drainage systems  Structures  Retaining walls  Road restraint system  Lighting  Road surfacing  Environmental barriers  Replacement planting  Construction compounds  32 emergency refuge areas

6 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

2.22 The proposed development would use the hard shoulder to increase capacity. It would also provide new technology to facilitate the ability to vary speed limits and manage traffic flows. Five lane carriageways are proposed between J4 and J4b (currently four lanes) to provide sufficient capacity for traffic exiting/joining the main carriageway whilst enabling TJR at J4. Four lane carriageways and a hard shoulder are proposed between J4b and J5 (already present).

2.23 The Scoping Report (paragraph 2.1.3 of the Scoping Report) states that land would also be required permanently for road widening and side road realignment at overbridges and underbridge widening.

2.24 A total of c.130 new signs and/or gantries are proposed (see paragraph 2.1.14 of the Scoping Report) in addition c.20 existing message signs and 3 existing gantries would be retained. The location of new gantries and those to be removed are shown on Figure 1 of the Scoping Report. About 130 CCTV cameras and c.180 above ground detection radars and replacement lighting would be provided. This would be controlled via a Regional Control Centre.

2.25 The proposed development would require new drainage systems to replace or augment the existing drainage system. Surface water channels or linear drains are proposed to replace drainage in the central reserve. Oversized pipes would be used to store surface water generated from additional areas of hardstanding.

2.26 The Scoping Report (paragraph 2.2.3) contains details of thirteen possible areas which may be required as temporary construction compounds for the proposed development and these are shown on Figure 1 of the Scoping Report.

2.27 The Scoping Report (paragraph 2.1.9) identifies that 32 Emergency Refuge Areas are currently being considered for the proposed development. As far as possible the proposed development is seeking to ensure they are built over the existing highway verges and within the existing highway boundary.

2.28 The existing lighting would be removed as necessary and replaced with modern LED lighting with a central management control system (see paragraph 2.1.29 of the Scoping Report).

2.29 Retaining walls may be required at Emergency Refuge Areas, gantry legs and other locations and are required to minimise additional land take.

2.30 A Rigid Concrete Barrier and paved central reserve is planned throughout the proposed development. At hazards, such as CCTV cameras, signs and gantries, safety barriers would be installed.

7 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

2.31 Thin Surface Course is proposed for re-surfacing or where a new surface is needed.

Proposed access

2.32 The Scoping Report does not specifically describe the proposed access arrangements for the construction and maintenance of the proposed development. The Scoping Report states (paragraph 2.1.3) that land would be required temporarily for access and that this land is shown on Figure 1.

2.33 Paragraph 2.2.5 of the Scoping Report states that areas for access and construction works have been included around the bridgeworks sites.

2.34 Paragraph 6.9.11 of the Scoping Report identifies that access to community and private assets may be temporarily affected during construction and that diversions would be put in place.

Construction

2.35 The Scoping Report (paragraph 2.2.1) states that certain aspects of the construction would be determined by the contractor who would undertake the works and as such the Scoping Report details the most likely arrangements regarding construction.

2.36 A construction programme is under development but has not been included within the Scoping Report. The construction stage is expected to start in 2016 and would take 5 years and 6 months over 3 phases (Scoping Report section 2.4). Construction would progress from west to east and each phase of construction would have three main stages:

 Stage 1: Mobilisation, advance verge works, main verge works (including bridgeworks, retaining walls and gantries)

 Stage 2: Central reserve works

 Stage 3: Commissioning

2.37 The construction activities documented in the Scoping Report are based upon current best practice and the most likely arrangements.

2.38 A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) would be developed to reduce the construction effects of the proposed development (paragraph 5.7.1 of the Scoping Report).

2.39 Paragraph 6.6.12 of the Scoping Report lists materials which would most likely be used during construction of the proposed development.

8 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

2.40 Details of waste materials including those generated during the demolition of existing structures and during new construction activities are identified in Paragraph 6.6.13 of the Scoping Report. Paragraph 5.5.4 of the Scoping Report states that the elimination of waste would be dealt within in the ES. Paragraph 6.6.1 of the Scoping Report further states that prior to construction the contractor appointed to undertake the proposed development would carry out detailed consultations with local authorities about material use and disposal.

Operation and maintenance

2.41 The number of general road traffic vehicles likely to use the motorway during operational stage is not provided.

Decommissioning

2.42 The Scoping Report (paragraph states 5.5.3) that decommissioning would be addressed in the Scheme Description section of the ES. This would include details of how the proposed development would be designed to maximise the scope for materials re-use in the event of decommissioning, as well as considering the design life and maintenance requirements of the proposed development.

The Secretary of State’s Comments

Description of the application site and surrounding area

2.43 In addition to detailed baseline information to be provided within topic specific chapters of the ES, the Secretary of State would expect the ES to include a section that describes the site and surroundings. This would identify the context of the proposed development, any relevant designations and sensitive receptors. This section should identify land that could be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed development and any associated auxiliary facilities, landscaping areas and potential off site mitigation or compensation schemes.

2.44 The Scoping Report (paragraph 2.1.15) refers to a Regional Control Centre where CCTV cameras will be monitored. No details are provided in the Scoping Report as to the location of this control centre. The applicant is advised to provide details in the ES as to the location of this control centre, whether or not this is new or existing building and any implications of its use.

2.45 The Secretary of State advises that areas of temporary and permanent land take are differentiated, and shown and labelled clearly on any supporting figures.

9 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

2.46 The Scoping Report (paragraph 6.4.2) refers to a concern raised by NE regarding potential effects from the proposed development on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA and the South West London Waterbodies SPA/Ramsar site. No figure is provided to illustrate the location of these sites. This information should be included in the ES together with details of the designation and any impacts on these sites. The ES should clearly identify European sites in relation to the proposed development.

2.47 The land ownership is not clear on Figure 1; the Secretary of State advises that where the proposed development extends beyond the highway boundary, this should be clearly shown in the ES.

Description of the proposed development

2.48 The applicant should ensure that the description of the proposed development that is being applied for is as accurate and firm as possible as this would form the basis of the environmental impact assessment. The applicant should be aware that the description of the development in the ES must be sufficiently certain to meet the requirements of paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations and there should therefore be more certainty by the time the ES is submitted with the DCO.

2.49 If a draft DCO is to be submitted, the applicant should clearly define what elements of the proposed development are integral to the NSIP under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) and which an ancillary matter is.

2.50 Any proposed works and/or infrastructure required as associated development, or as an ancillary matter, (whether on or off-site) should be considered as part of an integrated approach to environmental assessment.

2.51 The Secretary of State recommends that the ES should include a clear description of all aspects of the proposed development, including a clear identification of areas of temporary and permanent land take, at the construction, operation and decommissioning stages, and include:

 Land use requirements  Site preparation  Construction processes and methods  Transport routes  Operational requirements  Maintenance activities and

10 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

 Emissions- water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation.

2.52 The location of the proposed radar masts and CCTV cameras should be clearly identified on supporting plans.

2.53 The environmental effects of all wastes to be processed and removed from the site should be addressed. The Secretary of State welcomes that a Site Waste Management Plan would be prepared for the proposed development and recommends that a draft is provided in the ES. The ES would need to identify and describe the control processes and mitigation procedures for storing and transporting waste off site. All waste types should be quantified and classified.

Alternatives

2.54 The ES should provide ‘An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant and an indication of the main reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental effects’ (See Appendix 3 of this Scoping Opinion).

2.55 The Secretary of State recommends that a section is included in the ES to explain the process which has been undertaken to identify the option chosen.

2.56 Paragraphs 2.3.1 – 2.3.2 of the Scoping Report state that the detailed design of the proposed development is to be developed further through a reference design stage which would form the basis of the DCO application. The Secretary of State welcomes that the proposals are to be firmed up during the pre-application stages but encourages the description to be as accurate and firm as possible so that its environmental impact can be more accurately assessed.

2.57 Reference is made (paragraph 2.3.1 of the Scoping Report) to Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 9 ‘Using the ‘Rochdale Envelope’, the Secretary of State also directs attention to the ‘Flexibility’ section in Appendix 3 of this Opinion which provides additional details on the recommended approach.

2.58 The applicant should make every attempt to narrow the range of options and explain clearly in the ES which elements of the scheme have yet to be finalised and provide the reasons. At the time of application, any proposed scheme parameters should not be so wide ranging as to represent effectively different schemes. The scheme parameters would need to be clearly defined in the draft DCO and therefore in the accompanying ES. It is a matter for the applicant, in preparing an ES, to consider whether it is possible to robustly assess a range of impacts resulting from a large number of undecided parameters. The description of the proposed development in the ES must not be so wide that it is insufficiently

11 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

certain to comply with requirements of paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations.

2.59 If the proposed development changes substantially during the EIA process, prior to application submission, the applicant may wish to consider the need to request a new scoping opinion.

Proposed access

2.60 The Scoping Report provides limited details regarding access arrangements during the construction phase. The Secretary of State expects to see a detailed description of access arrangements in the ES, accompanied by figures where relevant. Proposed temporary road closures and their diversion routes should be described and assessed in the ES.

2.61 The ES should identify proposed routes to and from construction compounds for both construction vehicles and workers.

Construction

2.62 The Secretary of State considers that information on construction including: phasing of programme; construction methods and activities associated with each phase; details of plant and equipment required; lighting equipment/requirements; and number, movements and parking of construction vehicles (both HGVs and staff) should be clearly indicated in the ES. The ES should explain the proposed working hours and whether night time working would be required and how these would be secured through the DCO. It is appreciated that this information may not be available at this stage in the evolution of the proposed development, however, applicants are reminded that this information would be required and should be included in the DCO.

2.63 The Scoping Report (paragraph 2.2.4) states that the final selection of construction compounds would be undertaken by the contractor but it does not provide details of whether or not all thirteen of the sites identified would be required, or if any further possible locations may be considered. The Secretary of State advises that the size, location (including on and off site); means of access to and duration of use of the selected construction compounds should be clearly set out in the ES. Construction compounds should be clearly identified within the ES and labelled on supporting plans.

2.64 The applicant should include a CEMP as part of the ES to demonstrate how the mitigation measures relied on the ES would be delivered. The applicant should also address how this document would be secured within the DCO.

12 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

Operation and maintenance

2.65 The Secretary of State welcomes the intention (paragraph 7.1.3 of the Scoping Report) to provide a description of the principal elements of operation and maintenance of the proposed development within the ES. The ES should describe the frequency of any maintenance works, the number of workers, equipment arrangements and access requirements.

Decommissioning

2.66 The Secretary of State welcomes the intention to address decommissioning within the ES. The Secretary of State acknowledges that the further into the future any assessment is made, the less reliance may be placed on the outcome. However, the purpose of such a long term assessment is to enable the decommissioning of the works to be taken into account in the design and use of materials such that structures can be taken down with the minimum of disruption.

13 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

3.0 EIA APPROACH AND TOPIC AREAS

Introduction

3.1 This section contains the Secretary of State’s specific comments on the approach to the ES and topic areas as set out in the Scoping Report. General advice on the presentation of an ES is provided at Appendix 3 of this Opinion and should be read in conjunction with this Section.

3.2 Applicants are advised that the scope of the DCO application should be clearly addressed and assessed consistently within the ES.

Environmental Statement (ES) - approach

3.3 The information provided in the Scoping Report sets out the proposed approach to the preparation of the ES. Whilst early engagement on the scope of the ES is to be welcomed, the Secretary of State notes that the level of information provided at this stage is not always sufficient to allow for detailed comments from either the Secretary of State or the consultees.

3.4 The Secretary of State welcomes the consultation undertaken to date and encourages the applicant to continue on-going stakeholder liaison and consultation throughout the preparation of the environmental impact assessment. Where consultation has led to agreements between the applicant and stakeholders regarding environmental assessments, evidence of this should be provided within the ES.

3.5 The Secretary of State advises the applicant to ensure they have consulted all relevant local authorities and stakeholders regarding this proposed development. Attention is drawn to comments received by South Bucks District Council stating they have not yet been consulted regarding the proposed development.

3.6 The Secretary of State recommends that such consultation seeks to agree wherever possible the timing and relevance of survey work as well as the methodologies to be used and, where this is not possible, to explain the reasons. The Secretary of State welcomes the intention to finalise the scope of investigations in conjunction with ongoing stakeholder liaison and consultation with the relevant regulatory authorities and their advisors.

3.7 The Secretary of State welcomes the approach to use the recognised guidelines and methodologies for the assessment of each topic area as set out in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Volume 11. The Secretary of State also welcomes the use of Interim Advice Notes where relevant.

14 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

3.8 The Secretary of State recommends that the physical scope of the study areas should be identified under all the environmental topics and should be sufficiently robust in order to undertake the assessment. The extent of the study areas should be on the basis of recognised professional guidance, whenever such guidance is available. The study areas should also be agreed with the relevant consultees and, where this is not possible, this should be stated clearly in the ES and a reasoned justification given. The scope should also cover the breadth of the topic area and the temporal scope, and these aspects should be described and justified.

3.9 The Secretary of State welcomes the approach to be undertaken regarding the various topic chapters in the ES (paragraph 7.1.7 of the Scoping Report), whilst acknowledging that there may need to be a slight variation between some chapters. Clear cross referencing between topic chapters should be included (see further details in Appendix 3).

Matters to be scoped out

3.10 The applicant has identified in the relevant sections of the Scoping Report the matters proposed to be ‘scoped out’. These include:

 Landscape: the Scoping Report (paragraph 6.3.13) states that effects on landscape character would only be considered in relation to North Wessex Downs AONB as the proposed development involves limited interventions on an existing motorway. The Secretary of State considers that the impacts from additional gantries, signs and poles for mounting CCTV camera and lighting are not yet fully understood and therefore does not agree to scope out impacts on landscape character.  Lighting: the Scoping Report (paragraph 6.3.14) states that lighting is only proposed in locations of the motorway which are already lit, and the level of carriageway illumination would be at a reduced lighting level and therefore the applicant is seeking to scope out night time visual effects from lighting. However, the final design of new lighting is not yet known and the Scoping Report does not explain if the replacement lighting would require new poles in different location to where they are currently; furthermore, paragraph 2.2.7 states that temporary lighting would be required on a task by task basis. No details are provided regarding the location and duration of this temporary lighting and what the impact would be, therefore the Secretary of State does not agree to scope out impacts from lighting.  Nature Conservation: impacts on dormice (paragraph 6.4.19 of the Scoping Report) state that the potential presence of dormice has been scoped out on the basis of survey results from surveys undertaken between April – October 2010 and May – October 2013 which found no evidence of dormice being present on the site. However, no further data regarding the

15 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

surveys such as location, monitoring points have been provided with the Scoping Report and therefore without this evidence the Secretary of State cannot agree to scope out impacts on dormice.  Materials and Waste: the Scoping Report (paragraph 6.6.15) states that quantities of waste to be produced during operation and maintenance of the proposed development are not significant and have been scoped out. The Secretary of State agrees that materials and waste can be scoped out for operation and maintenance but not for the construction phase.  Effects on Travellers: the Scoping Report (paragraph 6.8.17) states that views from the road have been scoped out as the potential increased urbanisation of the motorway would not significantly alter views. The Secretary of State considers that the effects on travellers from an increase of gantries, signage and the permanent use of 4 lanes is not fully understood and therefore does not agree that this can be scoped out.  Permanent effects on pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians are proposed to be scoped out (paragraph 6.8.18 of the Scoping Report) as any diversions and closures are anticipated to revert back to the existing situation upon completion. The Secretary of State agrees that permanent effects can be scoped out, but for the avoidance of doubt temporary effects during the construction phase cannot be agreed to be scoped out at this stage.  Road Drainage and the Water Environment: the applicant is proposing to scope out two assessment criteria from Design Manual for Roads and Bridges HD45/09. However it is unclear to the Secretary of State what exactly the applicant is seeking to scope out of the ES. As a consequence, the Secretary of State is unable to scope out this matter.

3.11 Matters are not scoped out unless specifically addressed and justified by the applicant, and confirmed as being scoped out by the Secretary of State.

3.12 Whilst the Secretary of State has not agreed to scope out certain topic or matters within the Opinion on the basis of the information available at the time, this does not prevent the applicant from subsequently agreeing with the relevant consultees to scope matters out of the ES, where further evidence has been provided to justify this approach. This approach should be explained fully in the ES.

3.13 In order to demonstrate that topics have not simply been overlooked, where topics are scoped out prior to submission of the DCO application, the ES should still explain the reasoning and justify the approach taken.

16 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

National Policy Statements (NPSs)

3.14 The draft National Roads and Rail Networks NPS was published in February 2014. This draft NPS sets out assessment principles that should be considered in the EIA for the proposed development. When undertaking the EIA, the applicant is advised to have regard to the draft National Roads and Rail Networks NPS.

3.15 The Secretary of State must have regard to any matter that the Secretary of State thinks is important and relevant to the Secretary of State’s decision. This could include the draft NPS if the relevant NPS has not been formally designated.

Environmental Statement - Structure

3.16 Section 5 of the Scoping Report sets out the proposed Contents list of the ES on which the applicant seeks the opinion of the Secretary of State.

3.17 The EIA would cover a number of assessments under the broad headings of:

 Air Quality  Cultural Heritage  Landscape  Nature Conservation  Geology and Soils  Materials and Waste  Noise and Vibration  Effects on All Travellers  Community and Private Assets  Road Drainage and the Water Environment  Combined and Cumulative Effects.

3.18 The Secretary of State recommends that the ES should include a description of the proposed construction programme and methods.

Topic Areas

Air Quality (see Scoping Report Section 6.1)

3.19 The Secretary of State welcomes the intention to undertake consultations with Air Quality Officers/ Environmental Health Officers from relevant local authorities affected by the scheme. Up to date baseline data should be used in the assessment.

17 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

3.20 The Secretary of State welcomes the approach of using the ADMS roads dispersion model to assess local air quality; and that predictions would be verified using baseline modelling predictions and baseline air quality monitoring data (paragraph 6.1.17).

3.21 The study area should be drawn so as to take account of routes affected by the proposed development and this should include areas of traffic congestion where traffic may be delayed. There are 6 Air Quality Management Area’s (AQMA) between Junctions 3 and 12 of the M4 Motorway and the ES should fully assess the impacts the proposed development would have on these AQMA’s (see comments from Council in Appendix 2 of this Scoping Opinion).

3.22 The Secretary of State advises that consideration should also be given to air quality impacts on recreational receptors. Air quality and dust levels should be considered not only on site but also off site. The Secretary of State welcomes the intention to assess the effects on air quality due to emissions from plant and vehicles from construction dust (paragraph 6.1.26 of the Scoping Report). Consideration should be given to monitoring dust complaints. The potential mitigation measures during construction have been identified in the Scoping Report (paragraph 6.1.29). The Secretary of State recommends that these mitigation measures should be developed further and information provided in the ES to demonstrate how these measures would be delivered through the DCO and so may be relied upon in the ES.

3.23 The applicant’s attention is drawn to comments by Public Health England and Natural England (see Appendix 2 of this Scoping Opinion) regarding the risks of air pollution.

Cultural Heritage (see Scoping Report Section 6.2)

3.24 The Secretary of State welcomes the intention to undertake consultation with local authorities and English Heritage (paragraph 6.2.1 of the Scoping Report). Consideration should be given to including the Buckinghamshire Historic Environment Record (see comments from Buckinghamshire County Council in Appendix 2 of this Scoping Opinion).

3.25 The study area has been identified as being 250m either side of the highway boundary, and the intention to consider visual impacts outside of 250m is welcomed (paragraph 6.2.6 of the Scoping Report). The Secretary of State advises that cross reference should be made to other specialist topics – such as landscape and visual, such that the ES is not a series of unconnected specialist reports but rather an overall assessment of the proposed development.

3.26 The Secretary of State recommends that the ES should assess any impacts to the setting of cultural heritage resources as a result of

18 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

bridge modifications or new bridge structures or other road infrastructure such as gantries.

3.27 The applicant’s attention is drawn to comments raised by the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (see Appendix 2 of this Scoping Opinion) regarding the assessment of cultural heritage.

3.28 The reference to ‘GI’ in paragraph 6.2.15 of the Scoping Report should be added to the Glossary.

Landscape (see Scoping Report Section 6.3)

3.29 The Secretary of State is pleased that consultation has been undertaken with local authorities and Natural England regarding baseline information. The Secretary of State welcomes the intention to continue this consultation. Attention is drawn to comments received by Natural England (see Appendix 2) regarding landscape and visual impacts.

3.30 Paragraph 6.3.11 of the Scoping Report identifies that there is potential for significant effects in respect of the North Wessex Downs AONB and the Secretary of State advises that the ES should assess impacts on the AONB in terms of landscape character and a visual assessment.

3.31 The study area for the assessment is not anticipated to extend more than 1km from the proposed development, subject to detailed review during the iterative environmental assessment process. Given the scale of some of the proposed structures, a wider area than 1km may be necessary for the study area and the Secretary of State advises that the ES should take account of a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) to identify the study area. The ES should describe the model used and provide information on the timings of any survey work. The ZTV should ensure that all potential sensitive receptors are considered. The ZTV should take account of the new structures, such as gantries, as set out in the relevant sections of DMRB Volume 11 and Highways Agency’s Interim Advice Note 135/10 ‘Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment’. This should include a daytime assessment as well as a night-time assessment.

3.32 The Secretary of States welcomes that due consideration would be given to night time visual effects from lighting (paragraph 6.3.12 of the Scoping Report). However, the ES should fully consider the visual impact (both day and night time) which additional signage, gantries and replacement lighting and CCTV poles may have on the surrounding landscape.

3.33 Cross reference should be made to the Cultural Heritage and Nature Conservation section of the ES.

19 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

Nature Conservation (see Scoping Report Section 6.4)

3.34 The Secretary of State welcomes the consultation that has been undertaken with local authorities and Natural England to establish baseline conditions. The Secretary of State welcomes the intention to continue this consultation and to commence consultations with other consultees such as the Environment Agency.

3.35 Some surveys are to be completed in 2014 (paragraph 6.4.3). However it is not made clear in the Scoping Report which surveys are still outstanding. The Secretary of State recommends that all surveys should be thorough, up to date and take account of other development proposed in the vicinity. The location of surveys should be clearly shown, including the use of supporting maps (see comments from Buckinghamshire County Council in Appendix 2 of this Scoping Opinion, regarding location of surveys).

3.36 Initial comments provided by Natural England (paragraph 6.4.1 of the Scoping Report) have expressed concerns over potential effects of the proposal on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and the South West London Waterbodies SPA/Ramsar site. Paragraph 6.4.20 of the Scoping Report states that it is considered unlikely that the proposed development would have any impacts on sites designated under the Habitats Directive. The Secretary of State recommends that the potential impacts on international and nationally designated sites should be fully assessed as well as county level habitats. In the event that Natura 2000 sites are found to be affected by the proposed development, this would need to be assessed in the ES (See Section 4 of this Opinion regarding Habitats Regulations). The applicant’s attention is drawn to comments raised by Natural England regarding the assessment of designated sites and protected species (see Appendix 2 of this Scoping Opinion).

3.37 The assessment should take account of impacts from noise, vibration, air quality (including dust) and potential pollution from surface run off. Cross reference should be made to these specialist reports.

3.38 The Secretary of State recommends that the ES assesses the impact of all phases of the proposal on protected species. The Secretary of State recommends that the proposals should address fully the needs of protecting and enhancing biodiversity. The assessment should cover habitats, species and processes with the sites and surroundings.

3.39 The applicants attention is drawn to comments raised by South Bucks District Council regarding impacts to air quality on Burnham Beeches SAC (see Appendix 2 of this Scoping Opinion).

20 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

Geology and Soils (see Scoping Report Section 6.5)

3.40 The baseline for the ES should explain and justify the extent of the study area. This will be important to ensure that the impacts are considered over a sufficiently wide area.

3.41 The Secretary of States welcomes the consultation which has been undertaken with Natural England, the Environment Agency and local authorities and advises that consultation should continue.

3.42 The Secretary of State draws the applicant’s attention to the comments raised by South East Water (see Appendix 2 of this Scoping Opinion) regarding concerns about the impact that the proposed development may have on groundwater sources used to provide public drinking water, and on the M4 bridge at Monkey Island Lane.

Materials and Waste (see Scoping Report Section 6.6)

3.43 The Secretary of State welcomes the intention to consult with relevant local authorities and all statutory environmental bodies as part of the on-going EIA and PEIR process.

3.44 The applicant should consider whether the need for material sourcing, delivery and wastes generated/managed would merit a wider study area. The Secretary of State considers it essential to assess the volume of materials to be removed from the site and to identify the locations for the disposal of the materials and where potential traffic movements would be routed.

3.45 The Secretary of State advises that the ES should clarify the types of all wastes to be processed and that the effect of the proposal, in terms of waste, should be included in the ES.

3.46 The Secretary of State welcomes the intention of the applicant to produce a Site Waste Management Plan and recommends that a draft is provided within the ES.

Noise and Vibration (see Scoping Report Section 6.7)

3.47 The Secretary of State welcomes that consultations with Environmental Health Officers from relevant local authorities and with residents who may be affected would be undertaken. The Secretary of State recommends that the methodology, study area, use of existing data and choice of noise receptors should be agreed with relevant local authorities and the Environment Agency.

3.48 The Secretary of State welcomes the monitoring which has taken place in order to establish baseline information. The impact of using four lanes instead of three should be assessed. The applicant attention is drawn to comments raised by Waltham St Lawrence

21 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

Parish Council (see Appendix 2 of this Scoping Opinion) regarding the noise assessment.

3.49 The Secretary of State is pleased that the assessment would take into account effects of noise and vibration on sensitive receptors in the surrounding area, including residential, ecological and recreational land uses. The Secretary of State welcomes the assessment of the proposed development upon people and advises the applicant to assess any potential noise disturbance at night and other unsocial hours such as weekends and public holidays.

3.50 Information should be provided in the ES on the types of vehicles and plant to be used during the construction phase, including any impacts from piling. Where appropriate, effective measures should be provided to mitigate against noise nuisance.

3.51 The noise and vibration assessment should take account of the traffic movements along access routes, especially during the construction phase and taking into consideration any proposed diversion routes. The results from the noise and vibration assessment should also be used to inform the ecological assessment.

3.52 The Secretary of State expects the ES to clearly justify the need for noise mitigation measures such as the provision of additional noise barriers and/or enhancement of existing barriers and the provision of low noise surface throughout parts or on all of the proposed development. An assessment of their effectiveness at reducing noise impacts should be included.

3.53 Consideration should be given to monitoring noise complaints during construction and when the development is operational.

3.54 The applicant’s attention is drawn to comments raised by Earley Town Council (see Appendix 2 of this Scoping Opinion) regarding concern relating to the use of acoustic fencing and any potential secondary impacts.

Effects on all Travellers (see Scoping Report Section 6.8)

3.55 The Secretary of State welcomes the intention to carry out further public consultation.

3.56 The Secretary of State notes that the study area for effects on travellers is identified as the red line boundary for the proposed development, though consideration should also be given to roads outside of this boundary area (paragraph 6.8.6 of the Scoping Report). The Secretary of State advises that the parameters of the area to be assessed should be defined in the ES. The study area should be sufficient to include all the consequential effects of any

22 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

diversions and other traffic management measures on the surrounding road network.

3.57 The environmental receptors for this assessment are defined as being drivers on the M4, pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians using nearby PROW. Whilst the DMRB does not assign a value to these receptors, the Secretary of State welcomes that for the purposes of the ES, they are considered to be of high value.

3.58 The ES should also assess any temporary impacts during construction on pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians and vehicle travellers, including the impact from temporary road closures and diversions.

3.59 No mitigation measures are proposed in relation to all travellers (Paragraph 6.8.16 of the Scoping Report). The Secretary of State advises that consideration is given to mitigation measures and that these are clearly set out in the ES.

Community and Private Assets (see Scoping Report Section 6.9)

3.60 The Secretary of State welcomes the initial public consultation which has been undertaken and the intention to carry out further consultation.

3.61 Local level impacts are proposed to be assessed out to a ten mile radius from the proposed development; however regional level impacts have not been defined. The ES should include regional impacts or if not necessary, set out the justification for such an approach. This should be agreed with relevant stakeholders. The study area should be sufficient to include all the consequential effects of potential diversions and other traffic management measures on the surrounding road network.

3.62 The Secretary of State recommends that the assessment considers the number and type of jobs generated in the context of the available workforce in the area during the construction and operational stages. The assessment should also consider the wider effects of the proposed development in terms of local/regional economic activity including assessment of impacts on local businesses; this should include both positive and negative impacts.

Road Drainage and the Water Environment (see Scoping Report Section 6.10)

3.63 The Secretary of State welcomes that ongoing consultation with the EA would be undertaken to establish the approach to be taken regarding assessment of routine run-off and spillage.

23 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

3.64 The Secretary of State welcomes the intention to provide a Flood Risk Assessment for the proposed development. In order to avoid duplication of documents at submission, the Secretary of States advises that this is provided as part of the ES rather than a stand- alone document. The applicants attention is drawn to comments of the Environment Agency (see Appendix 2 of this Scoping Opinion).

3.65 The Secretary of State expects to see a detailed description of the drainage design in the ES with accompanying figures. The applicant should ensure that all aspects of the drainage design can be accommodated within the DCO boundary. The drainage design should be agreed in consultation with the EA and relevant local authorities. The operational effects of the proposed development should also be assessed, including, for example procedures for containments of spillages within the drainage system.

3.66 Works would be required on the banks of the at Bray in order to accommodate an extension to an overbridge. Works would also be required at Ashley Arch Culvert. The ES should fully assess the impact of these works upon the physical nature of the river and culvert, and upon the biological quality of the watercourse.

3.67 Mitigation measures should be addressed and the Secretary of State advises that reference should be made to other regimes (such as pollution prevention from the EA). On-going monitoring should also be addressed and agreed with the relevant authorities to ensure that any mitigation measures are effective.

3.68 The applicant’s attention is drawn to comments from Buckinghamshire County Council and the Environment Agency (see Appendix 2 of this Scoping Opinion) regarding the assessment of flood risk and the use of SuDS.

Combined and Cumulative Effects (see Scoping Report Section 6.11)

3.69 The Secretary of State is pleased to note that the applicant intends to consult relevant local authorities to determine which committed developments need to be included within the ES (Paragraph 6.11.5).

3.70 It should be made clear in the ES which developments and growth scenarios have been included within the traffic forecasting and which committed developments have been included within the transport modelling.

3.71 The interactive cumulative effects with other schemes would be reported in each environmental topic assessment chapter in order for it to be demonstrated how the effects of the Scheme on

24 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

environmental topic receptors are affected by other planned major developments. The Secretary of State directs attention to the ‘Cumulative Impacts’ section in Appendix 3 of this Opinion.

3.72 The applicant’s attention is drawn to comments raised by South Bucks District Council (see Appendix2) regarding the consideration of potential redevelopment sites and rail access in the area.

3.73 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of Natural England (see Appendix 2 of this Scoping Opinion) regarding the assessment of cumulative impacts.

25 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

4.0 OTHER INFORMATION

4.1 This section does not form part of the Secretary of State’s Opinion as to the information to be provided in the environmental statement. However, it does respond to other issues that the Secretary of State has identified which may help to inform the preparation of the application for the DCO.

Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)

4.2 The Scoping Report does not identify where the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and the South West London Waterbodies SPA/Ramsar sites are in relation to the proposed development. Paragraph 6.4.20 of the Scoping Request states that the applicant considers it unlikely that the proposed development will impact upon any sites designated under the habitats Directive (Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora). It is the applicant’s responsibility to provide sufficient information to the Competent Authority (CA) to enable them to carry out a HRA if required, or to provide sufficient information to satisfy the Secretary of State (as the CA) that an HRA is not required (ie that the proposed development is not likely to affect a European site and/or a European marine site). The Secretary of State recommends that early agreement on this approach, with the relevant Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) is sought, and that there is evidence of this agreement as part of the DCO application.

4.3 Further information with regard to the HRA process is contained within Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 10 available on the National Infrastructure pages on the Planning Portal website.

Evidence Plans

4.4 An evidence plan is a formal mechanism to agree upfront what information the applicant needs to supply to the Planning Inspectorate as part of a DCO application. An evidence plan will help to ensure compliance with the Habitats Regulations. It will be particularly relevant to NSIPs where impacts may be complex, large amounts of evidence may be needed or there are a number of uncertainties. It will also help applicants meet the requirement to provide sufficient information (as explained in Advice Note 10) in their application, so the Examining Authority can recommend to the Secretary of State whether or not to accept the application for examination and whether an appropriate assessment is required.

4.5 Any applicant of a proposed NSIP in England can request an evidence plan. A request for an evidence plan should be made at the start of pre-application (eg after notifying the Planning Inspectorate on an informal basis) by contacting the Major

26 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

Infrastructure and Environment Unit (MIEU) in Defra ([email protected]).

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)

4.6 There are two SSSIs are located close to or within the proposed development. These are and Pincents Kiln where there may be potential impacts on the SSSIs, the Secretary of State has duties under sections 28(G) and 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (the W&C Act). These are set out below for information.

4.7 Under s28(G), the Secretary of State has a general duty ‘… to take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of the authority’s functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the site is of special scientific interest’.

4.8 Under s28(I), the Secretary of State must notify the relevant nature conservation body (NCB), NE in this case, before authorising the carrying out of operations likely to damage the special interest features of a SSSI. Under these circumstances 28 days must elapse before deciding whether to grant consent, and the Secretary of State must take account of any advice received from the NCB, including advice on attaching conditions to the consent. The NCB will be notified during the examination period.

4.9 If applicants consider it likely that notification may be necessary under s28(I), they are advised to resolve any issues with the NCB before the DCO application is submitted to the Secretary of State. If, following assessment by applicants, it is considered that operations affecting the SSSI will not lead to damage of the special interest features, applicants should make this clear in the ES. The application documents submitted in accordance with Regulation 5(2)(l) could also provide this information. Applicants should seek to agree with the NCB the DCO requirements which will provide protection for the SSSI before the DCO application is submitted.

European Protected Species (EPS)

4.10 Applicants should be aware that the decision maker under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) has, as the CA, a duty to engage with the Habitats Directive. Where a potential risk to an EPS is identified, and before making a decision to grant development consent, the CA must, amongst other things, address the derogation tests2 in Regulation 53 of the Habitats Regulations.

2 Key case law re need to consider Article 16 of the Habitats Directive: Woolley vs East Cheshire County Council 2009 and Morge v Hampshire County Council 2010.

27 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

Therefore the applicant may wish to provide information which will assist the decision maker to meet this duty.

4.11 If an applicant has concluded that an EPS licence is required the ExA will need to understand whether there is any impediment to the licence being granted. The decision to apply for a licence or not will rest with the applicant as the person responsible for commissioning the proposed activity by taking into account the advice of their consultant ecologist.

4.12 Applicants are encouraged to consult with NE and, where required, to agree appropriate requirements to secure necessary mitigation. It would assist the examination if applicants could provide, with the application documents, confirmation from NE whether any issues have been identified which would prevent the EPS licence being granted.

4.13 Generally, NE are unable to grant an EPS licence in respect of any development until all the necessary consents required have been secured in order to proceed. For NSIPs, NE will assess a draft licence application in order to ensure that all the relevant issues have been addressed. Within 30 working days of receipt, NE will either issue ‘a letter of no impediment’ stating that it is satisfied, insofar as it can make a judgement, that the proposals presented comply with the regulations or will issue a letter outlining why NE consider the proposals do not meet licensing requirements and what further information is required before a ‘letter of no impediment’ can be issued. The applicant is responsible for ensure draft licence applications are satisfactory for the purposes of informing formal pre-application assessment by NE.

4.14 Ecological conditions on the site may change over time. It will be the applicant’s responsibility to ensure information is satisfactory for the purposes of informing the assessment of no detriment to the maintenance of favourable conservation status (FCS) of the population of EPS affected by the proposals3. Applicants are advised that current conservation status of populations may or may not be favourable. Demonstration of no detriment to favourable populations may require further survey and/or submission of revised short or long term mitigation or compensation proposals. In England the focus concerns the provision of up to date survey information which is then made available to NE (along with any resulting amendments to the draft licence application). This approach will help to ensure no delay in issuing the licence should the DCO application be successful. Applicants with projects in England or English waters can find further information on Natural England’s protected species

3 Key case law in respect of the application of the FCS test at a site level: Hafod Quarry Land Tribunal (Mersey Waste (Holdings) Limited v Wrexham County Borough Council) 2012, and Court of Appeal 2012.

28 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

licensing procedures in relation to NSIP’s by clicking on the following link:

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/wml-g36_tcm6- 28566.pdf

4.15 In England or English Waters, assistance may be obtained from the Consents Service Unit. The Unit works with applicants to coordinate key non-planning consents associated with nationally significant infrastructure projects. The Unit’s remit includes EPS licences. The service is free of charge and entirely voluntary. Further information is available from the following link:

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/legislation-and- advice/consents-service-unit/

Health Impact Assessment

4.16 The Secretary of State considers that it is a matter for the applicant to decide whether or not to submit a stand-alone Health Impact Assessment (HIA). At paragraph 5.1.6 of the Scoping Report, the applicant states their intention not to conduct the process of HIA alongside EIA. However, the applicant should have regard to the responses received from the relevant consultees regarding health, and in particular to the comments from the Health and Safety Executive and/or Public Health England in relation to electrical safety issues (see Appendix 2).

4.17 The methodology for the HIA, if prepared, should be agreed with the relevant statutory consultees and take into account mitigation measures for acute risks.

Other regulatory regimes

4.18 The Secretary of State recommends that the applicant should state clearly what regulatory areas are addressed in the ES and that the applicant should ensure that all relevant authorisations, licences, permits and consents that are necessary to enable operations to proceed are described in the ES. Also it should be clear that any likely significant effects of the proposed development which may be regulated by other statutory regimes have been properly taken into account in the ES.

4.19 It will not necessarily follow that the granting of consent under one regime will ensure consent under another regime. For those consents not capable of being included in an application for consent under the PA 2008, the Secretary of State will require a level of assurance or comfort from the relevant regulatory authorities that the proposal is acceptable and likely to be approved, before they make a recommendation or decision on an application. The applicant is encouraged to make early contact with other regulators. Information from the applicant about

29 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway progress in obtaining other permits, licences or consents, including any confirmation that there is no obvious reason why these will not subsequently be granted, will be helpful in supporting an application for development consent to the Secretary of State.

30 Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

APPENDIX 1 List of Consultees

Scoping Opinion for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

APPENDIX 1

LIST OF BODIES FORMALLY CONSULTED DURING THE SCOPING EXERCISE

CONSULTEE ORGANISATION SCHEDULE 1 The Health and Safety Executive Health and Safety Executive The National Health Service NHS England Commissioning Board and the Chiltern Clinical Commissioning Group relevant CGT Hillingdon Clinical Commissioning Group Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead Clinical Commissioning Group Wokingham Clinical Commissioning Group Hounslow Clinical Commissioning Group Bracknell and Ascot Clinical Commissioning Group South Reading Clinical Commissioning Group North and West Reading Clinical Commissioning Group Clinical Commissioning Group Natural England Natural England The Historic Buildings and English Heritage Monuments Commission for England The relevant Fire and Rescue London Fire Brigade Authority Royal Fire and Rescue Service Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service The relevant Police and Crime Police and Crime Commissioner for Commissioner Thames Valley Mayors Office for Policing and Crime The relevant Parish Council(s) or relevant Community Council with Parish Council Parish Council Englefield Parish Council Theale Parish Council Parish Council Parish Council Shinfield Parish Council Arborfield and Newland Parish Council Earley Parish Council Wokingham Without Parish Council

Appendix 1

Wokingham Town Council Winnersh Parish Council Binfield Parish Council Waltham St Lawrence and Shurlock Row Parish Council Bray parish Council Datchet Parish Council Eton Parish Council Horton Parish Council Shottlesbrook Parish Council White Waltham Parish Council St Nicolas Hurst Parish Council Cox Green Parish Council Burnham Parish Council Dorney Parish Council Taplow Parish Council Iver Parish Council Goinbrook with Poyle Parish Council The Environment Agency The Environment Agency The Civil Aviation Authority Civil Aviation Authority The Highways Agency The Highways Agency – regional contact The Relevant Highways Authority London Borough of Hounslow London Borough of Hillingdon Bracknell Forest Council Reading Council Slough Council Council Windsor and Maidenhead Council Wokingham Council Buckinghamshire County Council Transport for London Transport for London The Coal Authority The Coal Authority The Canal and River Trust The Canal and River Trust Public Health England, an Public Health England executive agency of the Department of Health The Crown Estate Commissioners The Crown Estate The Forestry Commission The Forestry Commission The Secretary of State for Ministry of Defence Defence (the Ministry of Defence)

RELEVANT STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS

Health Bodies (s.16 of the Acquisition of Land Act (ALA) 1981) The relevant Clinical NHS England Commissioning Group Chiltern Clinical Commissioning Group Hillingdon Clinical Commissioning Group Windsor, Ascot and Maidenhead

Appendix 1

Clinical Commissioning Group Wokingham Clinical Commissioning Group Hounslow Clinical Commissioning Group Bracknell and Ascot Clinical Commissioning Group South Reading Clinical Commissioning Group North and West Reading Clinical Commissioning Group Slough Clinical Commissioning Group The relevant Local Area Team NHS Commissioning Board The relevant Ambulance Trust South Central Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust London Ambulance Service NHS Trust Relevant Statutory Undertakers (s.8 ALA 1981) Railway Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd Highways Agency Historical Railways Estate Road Transport Transport for London Water Transport The Canal and River Trust Canal or Inland Navigation The Canal and River Trust Authorities Civil Aviation Authority Civil Aviation Authority Licence Holder (Chapter 1 of Part NATS En-Route (NERL) Safeguarding 1 of Transport Act 2000) Universal Service Provider Royal Mail Group The relevant water and sewage Affinity Water undertakers South East Water (Mid Kent) Thames Water Veolia Water Three Valleys The relevant public gas Energetics Gas Limited transporters ES Pipelines Ltd ESP Connections Ltd ESP Networks Ltd Fulcrum Pipelines Limited GTC Pipelines Limited Independent Pipelines Limited LNG Portable Pipeline Services Limited National Grid Gas Plc National Grid Plc Quadrant Pipelines Limited SSE Pipelines Ltd Scotland Gas Networks Plc Southern Gas Networks Plc Wales and West Utilities The relevant electricity licence Energetics Electricity Limited holder with CPO Powers ESP Electricity Limited

Appendix 1

(electricity distributors) Independent Power Networks Limited The Electricity Network Company Limited The relevant electricity licence National Grid Electricity Transmission holder with CPO Powers Plc (electricity transmitters) National Grid Plc The relevant electricity licence National Grid Interconnectors Limited holder with CPO Powers (electricity interconnectors)

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SECTION 43)

A county council, or district Vale of White Horse District Council council, in England Wiltshire Council Test Valley Borough Council Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Hart District Council Surrey Heath Borough Council Runnymeade Borough Council Spelthorne Borough Council South Bucks District Council South Oxfordshire District Council Wycombe District Council West Berkshire Council Reading Council Wokingham Council Bracknell Forest Council Windsor and Maidenhead Surrey County Council Slough Borough Council Hertfordshire County Council Buckinghamshire County Council Oxfordshire County Council Milton Keynes Council Central Bedfordshire Council Northamptonshire County Council Three Rivers District Council Hampshire County Council Chiltern District Council Greater London Authority Greater London Authority

A London Borough Ccouncil London Borough of Hounslow Richmond upon Thames Borough Council London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Council London Borough of Hillingdon London Borough of Harrow London Borough of Ealing

Appendix 1

APPENDIX 2 Respondents to Consultation and Copies of Replies

APPENDIX 2

LIST OF BODIES WHO REPLIED BY THE STATUTORY DEADLINE

Bracknell Forest Bray Parish Council Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Fire and Rescue Service Buckinghamshire County Council Canal and River Trust Chiltern Clinical Commissioning Group City of London Coal Authority Dorney Parish Council Earley Town Council English Heritage Environment Agency Fulcrum Pipelines Limited Harrow Council Health and Safety Executive Hounslow Council London Fire Brigade National Grid Natural England Public Health England Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Slough Borough Council South Bucks District Council South East Water Spelthorne Borough Council Tilehurst Parish Council Waltham St Lawrence Parish Council Wokingham Town Council

From: Simon Roskilly [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 03 September 2014 12:54 To: Environmental Services Subject: UNRESTRICTED: M4 Junctions 3-12: Smart Motorway

*** This message has been classified as UNRESTRICTED ***

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for consulting Bracknell Forest Council on the HA's Scoping Report for the M4 junctions 3-12 Smart Motorway proposal. We are satisfied with the majority of the Scoping Report published by the Highways Agency. However we believe that some thought should be given to how the 'Smart Lane' proposal may affect traffic flow within the Borough of Bracknell Forest, specifically taking into account sites recently allocated for development through the Site Allocations Local Plan 2013.

Some consideration should also be given to what implications the proposal may have on AQMAs within the Borough for example one on Bagshot Road which forms a M4/M3 link. Details on the Borough's AQMAs can be sought from the Councils Environmental Health Department via the following email address: [email protected] . It may be that there are positive effects however it is important that these are considered.

Please note that due the nature and extent of development we do not feel that the proposal will have any significant impacts upon the Borough of Bracknell Forest.

I hope this response is of some use.

Kind regards,

Simon Roskilly BSc (Hons) MSc Senior Planning Officer Strategic Delivery Team - Development Management Bracknell Forest Council Tel: 01344 352569 Email: [email protected] Web: www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk

**************************************************************** *****************

This e-mail will be read by employees of the Council and all personal information will be dealt with in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. The views expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual and not necessarily the views or opinions of Bracknell Forest Borough Council.

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the system manager. Email: [email protected]

This footnote also confirms that this e-mail has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. Although the Council has taken steps to ensure that this e- mail and any attachments are virus free we advise that in keeping with good ICT practice the recipients should confirm this for themselves.

**************************************************************** ******

This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

9th September 2014

Karen Jones EIA and Land Rights Advisor 3/18 Eagle Wind Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN

Your Ref: 140808_TR010019_2649167 Our Ref: KG090814

Dear Karen Jones

Re: Application by the Highways Agency for an order granting development consent for the M4 junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

The feedback report was published in July 2014. On a return of 143 questionnaires, it indicated that 51% of the survey respondents supported (34%) or strongly supported (17%) the scheme; with 8% against and 9% strongly against. The same respondents stated that they used the M4 daily (15%) or weekly (41%) but in the majority of cases (80%) for leisure purposes. 85% or respondents felt they would be affected by the proposed scheme, and 78% felt that noise was the greatest environmental issue.

The environmental impact is considered in some detail in the impact assessment. It includes amongst other things, air quality and landscape. The base line on environmental receptors being the North Wessex Downs AONB. It suggests that site visits will be made to establish the likely effects of visual receptors. However there are no apparent high sensitivity reports in our area. The scheme will include 161 new traffic gantries, although lighting will not extend beyond the existing lit areas (i.e. up to but not beyond 8/9 and there is discussion about road surfaces being laid to reduce the noise environment and a suggestion that other noise reduction methods may be incorporated. The parish is predominantly green belt countryside and it is easy to assume its general air quality will be good, unfortunately the volume of flight take offs from Heathrow over the parish means the background air pollution is already we’ll above average.

The greater flow of traffic will inevitably increase the likelihood of traffic using the A404 (M) and A308M, to avoid the M40 from to London, (M25\M40 junction and the A40) both of which experience congestion now. That will increase pressure on the 8/9 Junction, which already sees some significant congestion at certain times. It will increase the number of commuter journeys, through the Parish especially from Bracknell and Ascot (A330) and through Oldfield and Bray to and from the M4.

The volume of noise impacting on the parish is already significant, (for example in the residential area around Aysgarth Park). It may be that additional noise reduction measures will be required, beyond road surface changes, such as Highway Fencing to deaden the sound to local residential properties.

From a parish council perspective, the M4 already has a significant visual and audible impact. It is agreed that a managed traffic scheme could improve the environment and travel for all, provided that scheme does not create congestion around junction 8/9 and the A308 - A330 that will simply displace environmental issues further into the Parish and beyond.

cont’d

The Parish Office, Holyport War Memorial Hall, Moneyrow Green, Holyport, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 2NA. Telephone: 01628 777997 email: [email protected]

It is important that we engage now and forwards with the Borough and Highways agency on the impact of the increased signage and noise from traffic (by volume) and we consider what traffic volumes will be particularly around Junction 8/9 through the Parish, especially towards Bracknell and in practice onto Maidenhead itself as that flows towards the town via Braywick and also onto Windsor.

Yours sincerely

Janice Eden-Bagley

Janice Eden-Bagley Bray Parish Clerk

Sent on behalf of Bray Parish Council

The Parish Office, Holyport War Memorial Hall, Moneyrow Green, Holyport, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 2NA. Telephone: 01628 777997 Email: [email protected]

From: Pennick, Andrew [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 18 August 2014 09:30 To: Environmental Services Subject: Ref: 2649167

Sir/Madam,

With regards to the letter dated 12/8/14 regarding an application by the Highways Agency for an Order Granting Development Consent for the M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway, Buckinghamshire & Milton Keynes Fire & Rescue Service have no comments to make.

Furthermore we do not feel that we are consultation body for this matter, instead Royal Berkshire Fire & Rescue Service should be contacted.

Regards

Andrew Pennick Watch Manager – Protection Policy 01296 744482 / 07733 224166

Buckinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service, Unit 7, Brigade Headquarters, Stocklake, Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, HP20 1BD. BFRS main enquiry line: 01296 744400 Please visit our website at www.bucksfire.gov.uk

Our vision is to make Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes the safest areas in England in which to live, work and travel. Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?

______This email remains the property of Buckinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service and is intended for the recipient/s named above. If you have received this email in error please contact the ICT Helpdesk via email to [email protected] or contact the KIS Servicedesk on +44 (0) 1296 744 455, or write to Buckinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service, Brigade Headquarters, Stocklake, Aylesbury, HP20 1BD. ______This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

Communities & Buckinghamshire County Built Environment Council Place Service PLACE Service Policy, Strategy and Development New County Offices, Walton Street

Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire HP20

1UY

Telephone 0845 3708090 www.buckscc.gov.uk

Date: 4th September 2014 Submitted by email: Your ref: 140808_TR010019_2649167 [email protected]

FAO: Karen Jones (EIA and Land Rights Advisor) The Planning Inspectorate 3/18 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN

Dear Ms Jones,

Re: Highways Agency application for an Order Granting Development Consent for the M4 Junction 3-12 (Smart Motorway) – Environmental Statement scoping consultation

Thank you for consulting Buckinghamshire County Council regarding this Environmental Statement scoping opinion. Please find below our observations addressing flood management, landscape, ecological and archaeological matters.

To properly assess any flood risk associated with this proposal, we would expect the following documentation to be submitted for our consideration:

 Details of the existing site layout, drainage system and catchment areas, where appropriate;  Ground investigations, (including groundwater and contamination), and infiltration tests, where appropriate;  A detailed site layout at an identified scale (as agreed with the SuDS Approval Body) including a North point of the proposed drainage system and catchment areas;  A plan for the management of construction to include phasing and maintenance of the system (including access arrangements, operational characteristics, and energy requirements for constructing and maintaining all proposed drainage systems) and the details of any offsite works required, together with any

necessary consent period and any impacts, such as diversions and erosion control;  Suitable construction details and details of connections (including flow control devices) to watercourses, sewers, public surface water sewers, highway drains and drainage systems; and  Full design calculations and design parameters to demonstrate conformity with the design criteria for the site.

Considering the current documentation, we are disappointed that the suggested drainage to date is very conventional, using oversized pipes and gullies. We would wish for sustainable drainage to be considered within the Smart Motorway proposal. This is a great opportunity to showcase various SuDS techniques for managing flood risk and providing benefits such as pollution management, increased water quality, amenity and habitat.

The submitted information regarding landscape is limited, though it appears the core proposal would have a minimal impact on landscape (with most work taking place within the existing boundary of the motorway). It is suggested however that some land will be required to enable the construction or replacement of widened bridges. We would welcome further details on this matter.

When undertaking the Environmental Assessment for the Smart motorway proposal, the Highways Agency should be cognisant of baseline data from Buckinghamshire. From a landscape perspective that would include the Landscape Character Assessment for South Bucks District1 and the Historic Landscape Characterisation Project for Buckinghamshire2.

It is unclear at present whether the Environmental Assessment for this scheme will undertake a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. Although the literature states that environmental impact on landscape will be minimal we would encourage due consideration to be given to the potential visual impacts this proposal may impose. Particular attention should be paid to the visual intrusion which may be caused through the presence of new gantries and additional lighting. At the detailed design stage the County Council would encourage the Highways Agency to consider the character of the surrounding landscape. Cues should be taken from the landscape form and appearance when designing infrastructure.

We make a number of observations regarding ecological matters specific to the county. The relevant information is represented by Sheets 14, 18 and 19 (EIA Scoping Report Figure 1) of the submitted documentation and regards Junctions 7-8 and 4-5.

In order to consider potential ecological issues pertaining to the proposed improvements to the M4 Junctions 3-12: Smart Motorway specific to Buckinghamshire, We have reviewed what ecological concerns there are first within the footprint of the proposal and then within a 1km buffer. We have referred to designated sites (statutory and non-statutory) and protected species under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Also considered are habitats and species listed under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 as being of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity. In order to inform species records we have accessed BMERC records as an initial indication of protected and notable species only.

1 http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/environment/heritage-ecology/landscape/buckinghamshire-landscape-character- assessment/south-bucks-district-landscape-character-assessment/ 2 http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/leisure-and-culture/archaeology/historic-landscape-characterisation/

The scope of Ecological Baseline information to be updated or made additional to the existing baseline (6.4.6) should provide a robust account of the ecology potentially impacted by the proposal, provided that they adhere to best practice guidance as outlined. However, invertebrate surveys should also be scoped in as they may be similarly impacted by increased traffic and lighting which will cause direct fatality as well as increased resistance to dispersal. To this end Natural England provides guidance in the form of documents NERR005 and RIN005: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/36002 . The widening of the motorway is likely to lead to the loss of suitable habitat for invertebrates. The presence of water vole in four locations along the route may also warrant an increased valuation, though it is not clear from the Scoping Report where these locations are.

Opportunities should be sought to improve the linear connectivity of sites along the motorway as a potential corridor for wildlife. In any event, the lighting scheme should be developed with potential impacts upon bats and invertebrates in mind. It may be possible to consider the placement of lights in relation to sensitive adjacent habitats e.g. woodlands and rivers, or the timing of their use and the lighting levels. Bats can be significantly impacted by light levels and the type of lighting. Please refer to http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/bats_and_lighting.html for more information.

With regards to archaeological matters, we have consulted the Environmental Impact Assessment scoping report and welcome section 6.2 covering Cultural Heritage. Section 6.2.1 is particularly welcome, stating consultations will be undertaken with Local Authority development control archaeological officers at County level and English Heritage. We encourage the revision of section 6.2.3 to consult the Buckinghamshire Historic Environment Record. The potential mitigation measures stated are encouraging however 6.2.14 should be amended to read ‘Targeted archaeological excavations …’

We would normally expect applications to be supported by the results of an assessment of the significance of the historic assets affected and the impact of such development on that significance. This work should include an archaeological desk based assessment and a walk over survey. Such work should provide further information on the presence of undesignated and designated heritage assets such as may be affected. It is likely on some of these sites that such an assessment would indicate the need for an archaeological geophysical survey to provide factual information regarding the presence or absence of buried archaeological remains. Such information should be sought from the developers as supporting information to an application in accordance with Paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy Framework dealing with ‘information requirements’. It is likely that direct impacts of the scheme could be reduced or avoided through sensitive design; however this can only take place if facilitated by the assessments recommended above. We would therefore recommend that the historic environment is included within an Environmental Impact Assessment and covers the above issues. If it is decided that an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required then we would expect the above issues to be to be addressed prior to application.

Thank you for providing this opportunity to comment, we look forward to further opportunities to engage with you.

Yours sincerely,

Emma Green

Senior Policy, Strategy and Development Officer

Telephone: 01296 382090

Email: [email protected]

From: Jane Hennell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 10 September 2014 09:27 To: Environmental Services Subject: FAO Karen Jones M4 Smart Motorway

Dear Ms Jones

Thank you for consulting the Canal & River Trust on the Scoping Consultation with regard to the proposed M4 improvements between J3 and J12. I am writing to confirm that, at the moment we have no comments to make. We would however wish to be kept informed as the scheme progresses.

Kind Regards

Jane Hennell Area Planner South

The Canal & River Trust The Dock Office Commercial Road Gloucester GL1 2EB

Tel. 07747 897793

The Canal & River Trust is a new charity entrusted with the care of 2,000 miles of waterways in England and Wales. Get involved, join us - Visit / Donate / Volunteer at www.canalrivertrust.org.uk

Canal & River Trust is a charitable company limited by guarantee registered in England & Wales with company number 7807276 and charity number 1146792. Registered office address First Floor North, Station House, 500 Elder Gate, Milton Keynes MK9 1BB.

Elusen newydd yw Glandŵr Cymru sy’n gofalu am 2,000 o filltiroedd o ddyfrffyrdd yng Nghymru a Lloegr. Cymerwch ran, ymunwch â ni - Ewch i Rhoddion a Gwirfoddoli yn www.glandwrcymru.org.uk

Mae Glandŵr Cymru yn gwmni cyfyngedig drwy warant a gofrestrwyd yng Nghymru a Lloegr gyda rhif cwmni 7807276 a rhif elusen gofrestredig 1146792. Swyddfa gofrestredig: First Floor North, Station House, 500 Elder Gate, Milton Keynes MK9 1BB.

This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

NHS Chiltern Clinical Commissioning Group Chiltern District Council Offices Ground Floor King 27George August V Road2014 Amersham Buckinghamshire HP6 5AW

26th August 2014 Phone: 01494 586600 Fax: 01494 732035 Email: [email protected] Web: www.chilternccg.nhs.uk

The Secretary of State c/o Karen Jones EIA and Land Rights Advisor [email protected]

Dear Sir

Your Ref: 140808_TR010019_2649167

Application by the Highways Agency for an Order Granting Development Consent for the M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

Since the Secretary of State has identified this clinical commissioning group as a consultation body to help form a scoping opinion on the above planning application we are making our response. Having considered the scheme and its potential impact on health in the area, we do not have any comments to make.

Yours faithfully

Dr Annet Gamell Chief Clinical Officer

A healthy future together

From: Read, Helen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 21 August 2014 16:13 To: Environmental Services Subject: FAO Karen Jones

I have received some information regarding the proposal for a ‘smart motorway’ for the M4 between junctions 3 and 12.

I would like to point out that Burnham Beeches SAC is in the vicinity of these works and that a Habitats Regulations Assessment will be required. I trust this will be included in the environmental assessment.

I would be grateful if I could be kept informed of the progress of this project.

Regards

Helen

------Dr Helen Read MCIEEM, CEnv. Conservation Officer Burnham Beeches NNR & Stoke Common Hawthorn Lane Farnham Common Bucks. SL2 3TE Tel: 01753 647358 Fax: 01753 645012

[email protected] www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/burnham

Please note that my usual work days are Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday

THIS E-MAIL AND ANY ATTACHED FILES ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, copying, distribution or other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete this e-mail. Opinions, advice or facts included in this message are given without any warranties or intention to enter into a contractual relationship with the City of London unless specifically indicated otherwise by agreement, letter or facsimile signed by a City of London authorised signatory. Any part of this e-mail which is purely personal in nature is not authorised by the City of London. All e-mail through the City of London's gateway is potentially the subject of monitoring. All liability for errors and viruses is excluded. Please note that in so far as the City of London falls within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, it may need to disclose this e-mail. Website: http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

200 Lichfield Lane Berry Hill Mansfield Nottinghamshire NG18 4RG

Tel: 01623 637 119 (Planning Enquiries)

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.coal.decc.gov.uk/services/planning

Ms Karen Jones – EIA and Land Rights Advisor The Planning Inspectorate

[By Email: [email protected]]

Your Ref: TR010019

29 August 2014

Dear Ms Jones

Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) – Regulations 8 and 9

Application by the Highways Agency for an Order Granting Development Consent for the M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

Thank you for your consultation letter of 12 August 2014 seeking the views of The Coal Authority on the EIA Scoping Opinion for the above proposal.

The Coal Authority is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department of Energy and Climate Change. As a statutory consultee, The Coal Authority has a duty to respond to planning applications and development plans in order to protect the public and the environment in mining areas.

The Coal Authority Response:

I have reviewed the proposals and confirm that the proposed EIA development is located outside of the defined coalfield. Accordingly, The Coal Authority has no comments to make regarding the information to be contained in the Environmental Statement that will accompany this proposal.

As this proposal lies outside of the defined coalfield, in accordance with Regulation 3 and Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 it will not be necessary for any further consultations to be undertaken with The Coal Authority on this Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. This letter can

1

Protecting the public and the environment in coal mining areas be used by the applicant as evidence for the legal and procedural consultation requirements.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss this matter further.

Yours sincerely

Mark Harrison

Mark E. N. Harrison B.A.(Hons), DipTP, LL.M, MInstLM, MRTPI Planning Liaison Manager

Disclaimer

The above consultation response is provided by The Coal Authority as a Statutory Consultee and is based upon the latest available coal mining data on the date of the response, and electronic consultation records held by The Coal Authority since 1 April 2013. The comments made are also based upon only the information provided to The Coal Authority by the Local Planning Authority and/or has been published on the Council's website for consultation purposes in relation to this specific planning application. The views and conclusions contained in this response may be subject to review and amendment by The Coal Authority if additional or new data/information (such as a revised Coal Mining Risk Assessment) is provided by the Local Planning Authority or the Applicant for consultation purposes.

2

Protecting the public and the environment in coal mining areas

From: Susan Moffat [mailto ] Sent: 10 September 2014 00:11 To: Environmental Services Subject: Dorney Parish Council_2649167

Ref: 140808_TR010019_2649167

M4 junctions 3 to 12 -smart motorway

Dorney Parish Council registers an interest in this Application. Residents of Dorney parish have shown a keen interest in this development, particulalry those who could be affected. We await for the consultation process to commence and will send our comments.

Regards,

Sue Moffat

Clerk to Dorney Parish Council

This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

From: Maddy Bristow [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 10 September 2014 10:40 To: Environmental Services Subject: Development Consent for the M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway. Your Ref: 140808_TRO10019--_2649167

Dear Sirs,

I would refer to your letter of the 12th August concerning the above.

The proposed Smart Motorway Scheme was discussed by Town Councillors at a meeting yesterday evening. As a result of the discussions which took place, I can advise that the Town Council does not have any objection to the proposals but did request that ‘quiet tarmac’ should be used for any surfacing, to try to reduce the traffic noise to nearby residents. In addition, Councillors requested that, should the Scheme include the provision of additional acoustic fencing, the fencing should be designed/positioned in such a way as to ensure that the sound is not deflected creating an increased noise intrusion to residents living near to the route.

Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment.

Yours faithfully,

Maddy Bristow (Mrs.) Deputy Town Clerk

(Please note my normal hours of work are 8.00am to 2.00pm Monday to Friday)

Earley Town Council Council Offices Radstock Lane Earley Reading Berks RG6 5UL

Tel: 0118 986 8995

This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

SOUTH EAST

SeniorMs Karen Planning Jones Our ref: EIA and Land Rights Advisor Your ref: The Planning Inspectorate 01483 252040 3/18, Eagle Wing, Telephone Temple Quay House Fax 2, The Square, Bristol, BS1 6PN. 9th September 2014

Dear Ms Jones,

Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) –

Application by the Highways Agency for an Order Granting Development Consent for the M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

Scoping Consultation and Notification of the applicant’s contact details and duty to make available information to the applicant if requested.

Thank you for your letters of 12th August 2014 addressed to Andy Brown and Shane Gould inviting English Heritage to inform the Secretary of State of the information we consider should be provided in the environmental statement. Both have asked that I respond on English Heritage’s behalf.

We note that much of the work for this project would be confined to the existing motorway footprint and we also consider that no known designated heritage assets within the existing highway boundary would be directly impacted. We welcome the recognition in the report that, however, there may be indirect impacts resulting from a change in the setting of cultural heritage features.

In particular, we note that widening works will take place at Wood Lane, Cippenham, close to the Scheduled Monument east of Wood Lane (Moated Site and Associated Earthworks, List No. 1013455). It is possible that these works will have an impact on the setting of the monument. (Care will also be required to ensure that the monument is appropriately protected from any damage while the works are taking place).

Overall, we are satisfied that the scoping report adequately recognises the heritage assets that may be affected by this project. We are satisfied with the methodology proposed for assessing potential effects on heritage assets and the proposed mitigation measures.

EASTGATE COURT 195-205 HIGH STREET GUILDFORD SURREY GU1 3EH Telephone 01483 252000 Facsimile 01483 252001 www.english-heritage.org.uk Please note that English Heritage operates an access to information policy. Correspondence or information which you send us may therefore become publicly available

- 2 -

English Heritage does not, therefore, consider that any information needs to be provided in the environmental statement in respect of the historic environment in addition to that set out in the scoping report.

Thank you for consulting English Heritage on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Small Historic Environment Planning Adviser (Bucks, Oxon, Berks, Hampshire, IoW, South Downs National Park and Chichester)

E-mail: [email protected]

EASTGATE COURT 195-205 HIGH STREET GUILDFORD SURREY GU1 3EH Telephone 01483 252000 Facsimile 01483 252001 www.english-heritage.org.uk Please note that English Heritage operates an access to information policy. Correspondence or information which you send us may therefore become publicly available

Ms Karen Jones - EIA and Land Rights Our ref: WA/2014/118468/01-L01 Adviser Your ref: 140808_TR010019_2649167 The Planning Inspectorate National Infrastructure Directorate Date: 10 September 2014 Temple Quay House (2 The Square) Temple Quay Bristol Avon BS1 6PN

Dear Ms Jones

Re: M4 J3 – 12 Smart Motorway. Application By The Highways Agency For An Order Granting Development Consent For The M4 Junctions 3 To 12: Smart Motorway - Scoping Consultation And Notification Of The Applicant’s Contact Details And Duty To Make Available Information To The Applicant If Requested

Thank you for consulting us on the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report (Ref: 514451-MUH-00-ZZ-RP-EN-300081-6A) for the proposed M4 smart motorway. This consultation was received on 12 August 2014.

Our key issues are:  Flood Risk  Water Quality  Nature Conservation

We are pleased to see that they are proposing to include a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Water Framework Directive (WFD) assessment as part of their Environmental Statement. From our perspective these are the key elements which would need to be addressed within the Environmental Statement. We do have the following advice to offer:

6.4 Nature Conservation We note that otters and water voles have been identified at 4 locations on the route. We are pleased that they are proposing to update the baseline information with further surveys on these and also an extended phase 1 habitat survey.

6.10 Road Drainage and the Water Environment We welcome the proposed on-going consultation with us in relation to the assessment of routine run-off and spillage as this has the potential to have significant impacts on the water environment from both a flood risk and a water quality perspective if not managed

Cont/d.. appropriately.

We strongly support the intention to produce a FRA in relation to surface water drainage for the scheme. We acknowledge that they are proposing to maintain existing discharge rates and as such additional storage may be required. However, in accordance with Paragraph: 050 (Reference ID: 7-050-20140306) of the Planning Practice Guidance they should be looking for opportunities through development to reduce the level of flood risk in the area and beyond through the use of sustainable drainage systems.

Where it is practicable the inclusion of sustainable drainage techniques can also improve the quality of water being discharged. This would have mean additional benefits in relation to the water framework directive as well.

Surface Water Features – As stated the M4 crosses over 60 watercourses between junctions 3 and 12 and that for assessment purposes the applicant states that they will only be considering the most ‘significant’ ones. From a Water Framework Directive perspective ‘waterbody’ is made up of all surface water and groundwater in the ‘waterbody area’ so for WFD assessment purposes it does not matter if it is a main river or ordinary watercourse. Some of the less significant watercourses i.e the mentioned surface water drains and ditches have the potential to impact on their receiving watercourses. Therefore, ordinary watercourses will need assessing as well. We are keen to work with the Highways Agency and provide more detailed advice on this assessment as the studies progress.

Flood Risk – The scoping report correctly identifies that the route crosses a number of floodplains and also states that a FRA will be carried out. The FRA should assess the risk to the floodplain from the proposals and demonstrate that there will be no increase in risk, where possible this risk should be reduced.

Further Information As stated above we are pleased to see that a WFD assessment is being undertaken to determine if the scheme will compromise the improvement or result in the deterioration in ecological status of any waterbodies.

We are keen to work with the Highways Agency and their consultants on the scope of documents. However, we now charge for detailed planning advice to planning enquiries that we receive from our customers.

We still provide a free initial service in the form of a preliminary opinion which highlights any environmental issues we may be concerned with as a statutory consultee. This does not go into as much detail as to provide bespoke comments on the content of the supporting documents/assessments for an ES. Please see the attached guidance for further details.

If you require any further information or clarification on any point then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Cont/d.. 2

Mrs Marie Martin Major Projects Officer

Direct dial 01252 729627 Direct e-mail [email protected]

End 3

Guidance for Developers

The Environment Agency's Planning Advice November 2013

We are changing how we give you planning advice. We will continue to provide an initial free, standard level of pre-application advice to all developers regardless of the scale and complexity of the development. Where there are significant environmental issues to be resolved we will offer you a charged service for further detailed advice.

We are launching this service nationally between January - March 2014.

Introduction

We give environmental advice to developers on planning applications for Town and Country Planning development and for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs). Our advice is for environmental issues that concern us, for example flood risk, protection of land and water quality, waste management facilities and fisheries. Our advice is part of our contribution to achieving sustainable growth.

Our advice will help you to identify any serious environmental risks that you need to address in order to obtain planning permission or development consent. We can also help you to identify opportunities for environmental enhancements.

We receive a large number of enquiries for free pre-application advice, most of which we respond to within 21 days - the statutory planning time limit. In some cases you may ask us for further advice.

We'll now charge you when we give you further advice.

Our free service

Our free service is made up of standing advice and guidance that we make available on websites as well as our free advice.

When you request our free advice on your proposed development we will:

 Check environmental constraints from our constraint maps

 Check for site specific local environmental issues that concern us

 Provide a statement of any environmental issues you should consider further

 Let you know about environmental permits, licences and consents that your proposed development will need from us

Based on the information you have given us we will give you our 'preliminary opinion' that:

 The proposed development raises no environmental issues for us, or

 The proposed development raises some environmental issues that concern us and you'll need to undertake further work to show how to ensure no adverse environmental impacts, or

 On environmental grounds we would object in principle to the proposed development

We may offer you a meeting for complicated cases. Where we have advised you that you need further work to resolve specific environmental issues we will offer you further advice through a charging agreement.

Our charged service

Our charged service will help you to improve your application and to meet conditions placed on permission already granted. We may offer advice on for example mitigating the environmental impacts that concern us and opportunities for environmental enhancements.

We will provide a project manager to oversee our advice, agreeing tasks and timetables with you. This is so that we can make specialists available when you need advice from them. We may provide advice on documents and plans you provide, advice on aligning planning and permitting requirements, and other specific tasks we agree. Furthermore, we may carry out desk based analysis, arrange meetings and make site visits as set out in our agreement with you.

Our local Area Office will contact you to discuss the advice you want and prepare an agreement that is made up of an offer letter, a programme, and our standard terms and conditions. The programme will specify the tasks we will carry out, giving the approximate timetable and an order of cost for our advice. We use a national hourly rate, currently £84 per person per hour, for our planning advice agreements. We can vary a programme when we agree with you in writing the changes you want to make.

Our agreement with you would not prejudice our statutory planning advice to a planning authority once you have formally submitted your planning application and we don't guarantee that your development will be approved. Furthermore, our agreement with you wouldn't affect decisions we make about environmental permits, other consents and licences we issue.

Please contact us to find out how our charged service can help you.

Contacting us

To enquire about, or request, our planning advice you may:

 Call our Area office that will deal with your proposed development, or

 Call our national contact number 03798 506 506 (Monday - Friday, 8am to 6pm), or

 E-mail us at [email protected] or

 Post your request to: National Customer Contact Centre, PO Box 544, Rotherham S60 1BY

National Grid house Warwick Technology Park Gallows Hill, Warwick CV34 6DA

The Planning Inspectorate Land and Development 3/20 Eagle Wing Laura Kelly Temple Quay House Town Planner 2 The Square Network Engineering Bristol [email protected] BS1 6PN Direct tel: +44 (0)1926 654686

www.nationalgrid.com SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL TO: [email protected]

19 August 2014

Your Ref:140808_TR10019_2649167

Dear Sir/Madam,

Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended)- Regulations 8 and 9

Application by Highways agency for an order granting development consent for the M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway

Scoping consultation and notification of the applicants contact details and duty to make available information to the applicant if requested.

This is a joint response by National Grid Electricity Transmission plc (NGET) and National Grid Gas plc (NGG)

I refer to your letter dated 12th August 2014 regarding the above proposed application. Having reviewed the scoping report, I would like to make the following comments:

National Grid Infrastructure within or in close proximity to the Proposed Order Limits

National Grid Electricity Transmission

National Grid Electricity Transmission has two high voltage electricity overhead transmission lines and one underground transmission cable which lies within or in close proximity to the proposed order limits. This line forms an essential part of the electricity transmission network in England and Wales and include the following:

. 4YG 400kV Overhead Transmission Line – Bramley- Didcot . VW 275kV Overhead Transmission Line- Iver- Laleham- Iver- West Weydride . Underground Transmission cable- Iver- North Hyde

National Grid is a trading name for: National Grid is a trading name for: National Grid Electricity Transmission plc National Grid Gas plc Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH Registered in England and Wales, No 2366977 Registered in England and Wales, No 2006000

National Grid house Warwick Technology Park Gallows Hill, Warwick CV34 6DA

We also have two Electricity Transmission Substations within close proximity to the order limits as listed below-  North Hyde 275Kv Substation  North Hyde 66kV Substation

The following points should be taken into consideration:

. National Grid’s Overhead Line/s is protected by a Deed of Easement/Wayleave Agreement which provides full right of access to retain, maintain, repair and inspect our asset

. Statutory electrical safety clearances must be maintained at all times. Any proposed buildings must not be closer than 5.3m to the lowest conductor. National Grid recommends that no permanent structures are built directly beneath overhead lines. These distances are set out in EN 43 – 8 Technical Specification for “overhead line clearances Issue 3 (2004) available at: http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/DDC/devnearohl_final/appendixIII/ap pIII-part2

. If any changes in ground levels are proposed either beneath or in close proximity to our existing overhead lines then this would serve to reduce the safety clearances for such overhead lines. Safe clearances for existing overhead lines must be maintained in all circumstances.

. Further guidance on development near electricity transmission overhead lines is available here: http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/1E990EE5-D068-4DD6-8C9A- 4D0B06A1BA79/31436/Developmentnearoverheadlines1.pdf

. The relevant guidance in relation to working safely near to existing overhead lines is contained within the Health and Safety Executive’s (www.hse.gov.uk) Guidance Note GS 6 “Avoidance of Danger from Overhead Electric Lines” and all relevant site staff should make sure that they are both aware of and understand this guidance.

. Plant, machinery, equipment, buildings or scaffolding should not encroach within 5.3 metres of any of our high voltage conductors when those conductors are under their worse conditions of maximum “sag” and “swing” and overhead line profile (maximum “sag” and “swing”) drawings should be obtained using the contact details above.

. If a landscaping scheme is proposed as part of the proposal, we request that only slow and low growing species of trees and shrubs are planted beneath and adjacent to the existing overhead line to reduce the risk of growth to a height which compromises statutory safety clearances.

. Drilling or excavation works should not be undertaken if they have the potential to disturb or adversely affect the foundations or “pillars of support” of any existing tower. These foundations always extend beyond the base area of the existing tower and foundation (“pillar of support”) drawings can be obtained using the contact details above

. Due to the scale, bulk and cost of the transmission equipment required to operate at 275kV or 400kV we only support proposals for the relocation of existing high voltage overhead

National Grid is a trading name for: National Grid is a trading name for: National Grid Electricity Transmission plc National Grid Gas plc Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH Registered in England and Wales, No 2366977 Registered in England and Wales, No 2006000

National Grid house Warwick Technology Park Gallows Hill, Warwick CV34 6DA

lines where such proposals directly facilitate a major development or infrastructure project of national importance which has been identified as such by government.

To view the Development Near Lines Documents. Please use the link below: http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/SC/devnearohl_final/

To view the National Grid Policy's for our Sense of Place Document. Please use the link below: http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/DDC/

Specific Comments- Unground transmission Cables

 National Grid’s underground cables are protected by a Deed of grant; Easement; Wayleave Agreement or the provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Act. Which provide full right of access to retain, maintain, repair and inspect our asset. Hence we require that no permanent structures are to be built over our cables or within the easement strip.

 Ground levels above our cables must not be altered in any way. Any alterations to the depth of our cables will subsequently alter the rating of the circuit and can compromise the reliability, efficiency and safety of our electricity network.

 Copies of the detailed route records for the cable circuit can be supplied on request.

 The detailed route records should not be taken as positive indication of the cable location. This can only be determined by digging trial holes. Where trial holes are dug the concrete and / or polymeric cable protection tiles must not be disturbed.

 The normal recommendation is to keep 2 metres clear either side of the 1 metre wide trench containing the AC cable.

 National Grid should be made aware of the works starting and may put in place a representative to monitor the works. The works should be carried out in accordance with the recommendations in document HS (G) 47 available from the HSE web site..

Safety Guidance- Underground Transmission Cables

 The relocation of existing underground cables is not normally feasible on grounds of cost, operation and maintenance and environmental impact and we believe that successful development can take place in their vicinity.

 The information supplied is given in good faith and only as a guide to the location of our underground cables. The accuracy of this information cannot be guaranteed. The physical presence of such cables may also be evident from physical protection measures such as ducts or concrete protection tiles. The person(s) responsible for planning, supervising and carrying out work in proximity to our cable(s) shall be liable to us, as cable(s) owner, as

National Grid is a trading name for: National Grid is a trading name for: National Grid Electricity Transmission plc National Grid Gas plc Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH Registered in England and Wales, No 2366977 Registered in England and Wales, No 2006000

National Grid house Warwick Technology Park Gallows Hill, Warwick CV34 6DA

well as to any third party who may be affected in any way by any loss or damage resulting from their failure to locate and avoid any damage to such a cable(s).

 The relevant guidance in relation to working safely near to existing underground cables is contained within the Health and Safety Executive’s (www.hse.gov.uk) Guidance HS(G)47 “Avoiding Danger From Underground Services” and all relevant site staff should make sure that they are both aware of and understand this guidance.

 Our cables are normally buried to a depth of 0.9 metres to the protective covers but this depth can vary depending on location (bridges may have cables 100mm below surface level)..The specific cable route record drawings show further details along the route of the particular cable. The cable route drawings are attached to this letter for your information.

 Cables installed in cable tunnels, whilst less likely to be affected by surface or shallow works may be affected by activities such as piling.

 National Grid assets can be adversely affected by vibration and can provide guidance on the acceptable levels of vibration due to piling and other construction related operations in the vicinity of national grid assets

 Ground cover above our cables should not be reduced or increased without consultation with National Grid..

 If a landscaping scheme is proposed as part of the works, we request that no trees and shrubs are planted either directly above or within 3 metres of the existing underground cable, as ultimately the roots may grow to cause damage to the cable.

 To view the National Grid Policy's for our Sense of Place Document. Please use the link below: http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/DDC/

National Grid Gas Transmission

National Grid has one high pressure gas transmission pipeline and associated equipment located within and in close proximity to the proposed order limits. Details are as follows:

 FM07- Nuffield-Winkfield

National Grid Gas Distribution-

The National Grid apparatus that has been identified as being in the vicinity of your proposed works is:

 Local High pressure (above 7 bar) Gas Pipelines and associated equipment

 Intermediate pressure (above 2 bar) Gas Pipelines and associated equipment

National Grid is a trading name for: National Grid is a trading name for: National Grid Electricity Transmission plc National Grid Gas plc Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH Registered in England and Wales, No 2366977 Registered in England and Wales, No 2006000

National Grid house Warwick Technology Park Gallows Hill, Warwick CV34 6DA

 Low or Medium pressure (below 2 bar) gas pipes and associated equipment. (As a result it is highly likely that there are gas services and associated apparatus in the vicinity)

For further information on the location of the above Gas Distribution Assets please contact-

GL Noble Denton Holywell Park Ashby Road Loughborough Leics LE11 3GR

Tel: 01509 282800 Web: www.gl-group.com

Specific Comments – Gas Infrastructure

The following points should be taken into consideration:

. National Grid has a Deed of Grant of Easement for each pipeline, which prevents the erection of permanent / temporary buildings, or structures, change to existing ground levels, storage of materials etc.

Pipeline Crossings:

 Where existing roads cannot be used, construction traffic should ONLY cross the pipeline at previously agreed locations.

 The pipeline shall be protected, at the crossing points, by temporary rafts constructed at ground level. The third party shall review ground conditions, vehicle types and crossing frequencies to determine the type and construction of the raft required.

 The type of raft shall be agreed with National Grid prior to installation.

 No protective measures including the installation of concrete slab protection shall be installed over or near to the National Grid pipeline without the prior permission of National Grid.

 National Grid will need to agree the material, the dimensions and method of installation of the proposed protective measure.

 The method of installation shall be confirmed through the submission of a formal written method statement from the contractor to National Grid.

 Please be aware that written permission is required before any works commence within the National Grid easement strip.

National Grid is a trading name for: National Grid is a trading name for: National Grid Electricity Transmission plc National Grid Gas plc Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH Registered in England and Wales, No 2366977 Registered in England and Wales, No 2006000

National Grid house Warwick Technology Park Gallows Hill, Warwick CV34 6DA

 A National Grid representative shall monitor any works within close proximity to the pipeline to comply with National Grid specification T/SP/SSW22.  A Deed of Consent is required for any crossing of the easement

Cables Crossing:

 Cables may cross the pipeline at perpendicular angle to the pipeline i.e. 90 degrees.

 A National Grid representative shall supervise any cable crossing of a pipeline.

 Clearance must be at least 600mm above or below the pipeline.

 Impact protection slab should be laid between the cable and pipeline if cable crossing is above the pipeline.

 A Deed of Consent is required for any cable crossing the easement.

 Where a new service is to cross over the pipeline a clearance distance of 0.6 metres between the crown of the pipeline and underside of the service should be maintained. If this cannot be achieved the service shall cross below the pipeline with a clearance distance of 0.6 metres.

General Notes on Pipeline Safety:  You should be aware of the Health and Safety Executives guidance document HS(G) 47 "Avoiding Danger from Underground Services", and National Grid’s specification for Safe Working in the Vicinity of National Grid High Pressure gas pipelines and associated installations - requirements for third parties T/SP/SSW22.  National Grid will also need to ensure that our pipelines access is maintained during and after construction.  Our pipelines are normally buried to a depth cover of 1.1 metres however; actual depth and position must be confirmed on site by trial hole investigation under the supervision of a National Grid representative. Ground cover above our pipelines should not be reduced or increased.

 If any excavations are planned within 3 metres of National Grid High Pressure Pipeline or, within 10 metres of an AGI (Above Ground Installation), or if any embankment or dredging works are proposed then the actual position and depth of the pipeline must be established on site in the presence of a National Grid representative. A safe working method agreed prior to any work taking place in order to minimise the risk of damage and ensure the final depth of cover does not affect the integrity of the pipeline.

 Excavation works may take place unsupervised no closer than 3 metres from the pipeline once the actual depth and position has been has been confirmed on site under the supervision of a National Grid representative. Similarly, excavation with hand held power tools is not permitted within 1.5 metres from our apparatus and the work is undertaken with NG supervision and guidance.

To view the SSW22 Document, please use the link below: National Grid is a trading name for: National Grid is a trading name for: National Grid Electricity Transmission plc National Grid Gas plc Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH Registered in England and Wales, No 2366977 Registered in England and Wales, No 2006000

National Grid house Warwick Technology Park Gallows Hill, Warwick CV34 6DA

http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/DDC/GasElectricNW/safeworking.htm

To view the National Grid Policy's for our Sense of Place Document. Please use the link below: http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/DDC/

To download a copy of the HSE Guidance HS(G)47, please use the following link: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/hsg47.htm

Further information in relation to National Grid’s gas transmission pipelines can be accessed via the following internet link: http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/LandandDevelopment/DDC/gastransmission/gaspipes/

Further Advice

We would request that the potential impact of the proposed scheme on National Grid’s existing assets as set out above is considered in any subsequent reports, including in the Environmental Statement, and as part of any subsequent application.

Where the promoter intends to acquire land, extinguish rights, or interfere with any of National Grid apparatus protective provisions will be required in a form acceptable to it to be included within the DCO.

Where any diversion of apparatus may be required to facilitate a scheme, National Grid is unable to give any certainty with the regard to diversions until such time as adequate conceptual design studies have been undertaken by National Grid. Further information relating to this can be obtained by contacting the email address below.

National Grid requests to be consulted at the earliest stages to ensure that the most appropriate protective provisions are included within the DCO application to safeguard the integrity of our apparatus and to remove the requirement for objection. All consultations should be sent to the following: [email protected] as well as by post to the following address:

The Company Secretary 1-3 The Strand London WC2N 5EH

In order to respond at the earliest opportunity National Grid will require the following:

. Draft DCO including the Book of Reference and relevant Land Plans . Shape Files or CAD Files for the order limits

I hope the above information is useful. If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

The information in this letter is provided not withstanding any discussions taking place in relation to connections with electricity or gas customer services.

National Grid is a trading name for: National Grid is a trading name for: National Grid Electricity Transmission plc National Grid Gas plc Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH Registered in England and Wales, No 2366977 Registered in England and Wales, No 2006000

National Grid house Warwick Technology Park Gallows Hill, Warwick CV34 6DA

Yours sincerely

Laura Kelly Town Planner, Land and Development

(Submitted Electronically)

National Grid is a trading name for: National Grid is a trading name for: National Grid Electricity Transmission plc National Grid Gas plc Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH Registered Office: 1-3 Strand, London WC2N 5EH Registered in England and Wales, No 2366977 Registered in England and Wales, No 2006000

DRAWING

MASTER THE AS

TREATED BE TO - NOT ONLY

PURPOSES

VIEWING FOR IS

DOCUMENT THIS DRAWING

MASTER THE AS

TREATED BE TO - NOT ONLY

PURPOSES

VIEWING FOR IS

DOCUMENT THIS DRAWING

MASTER THE AS

TREATED BE TO - NOT ONLY

PURPOSES

VIEWING FOR IS

DOCUMENT THIS DRAWING

MASTER THE AS

TREATED BE TO - NOT ONLY

PURPOSES

VIEWING FOR IS

DOCUMENT THIS DRAWING

MASTER THE AS

TREATED BE TO - NOT ONLY

PURPOSES

VIEWING FOR IS

DOCUMENT THIS DRAWING

MASTER THE AS

TREATED BE TO - NOT ONLY

PURPOSES

VIEWING FOR IS

DOCUMENT THIS DRAWING

MASTER THE AS

TREATED BE TO - NOT ONLY

PURPOSES

VIEWING FOR IS

DOCUMENT THIS DRAWING

MASTER THE AS

TREATED BE TO - NOT ONLY

PURPOSES

VIEWING FOR IS

DOCUMENT THIS DRAWING

MASTER THE AS

TREATED BE TO - NOT ONLY

PURPOSES

VIEWING FOR IS

DOCUMENT THIS DRAWING

MASTER THE AS

TREATED BE TO - NOT ONLY

PURPOSES

VIEWING FOR IS

DOCUMENT THIS DRAWING

MASTER THE AS

TREATED BE TO - NOT ONLY

PURPOSES

VIEWING FOR IS

DOCUMENT THIS DRAWING

MASTER THE AS

TREATED BE TO - NOT ONLY

PURPOSES

VIEWING FOR IS

DOCUMENT THIS DRAWING

MASTER THE AS

TREATED BE TO - NOT ONLY

PURPOSES

VIEWING FOR IS

DOCUMENT THIS DRAWING

MASTER THE AS

TREATED BE TO - NOT ONLY

PURPOSES

VIEWING FOR IS

DOCUMENT THIS DRAWING

MASTER THE AS

TREATED BE TO - NOT ONLY

PURPOSES

VIEWING FOR IS

DOCUMENT THIS DRAWING

MASTER THE AS

TREATED BE TO - NOT ONLY

PURPOSES

VIEWING FOR IS

DOCUMENT THIS DRAWING

MASTER THE AS

TREATED BE TO - NOT ONLY

PURPOSES

VIEWING FOR IS

DOCUMENT THIS DRAWING

MASTER THE AS

TREATED BE TO - NOT ONLY

PURPOSES

VIEWING FOR IS

DOCUMENT THIS DRAWING

MASTER THE AS

TREATED BE TO - NOT ONLY

PURPOSES

VIEWING FOR IS

DOCUMENT THIS

From: &box_FPLplantprotection_conx, [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 19 August 2014 14:41 To: Environmental Services Subject: RE: M4 J3 – 12 Smart Motorway - TR010019

Hi,

We can confirm that Fulcrum Pipelines Limited have several sites on the route indicated on the plans from the scoping report. Please note that we are constantly adding to our underground assets and would strongly advise that you consult us again prior to undertaking any excavations.

Please note that other gas transporters may have plant in this locality which could be affected.

We will always make every effort to help you where we can, but Fulcrum Pipelines Limited will not be held responsible for any incident or accident arising from the use of the information associated with this search. The details provided are given in good faith, but no liability whatsoever can be accepted in respect thereof.

If you need any help or information simply contact Fulcrum on 03330 146 455

Yours sincerely,

DEBBIE TURNER Technical Administrator

Tel: 03330 146 455 Direct Dial: 01142 804 162 Email: [email protected] Web: www.fulcrum.co.uk

FULCRUM NEWS

MAJOR WEBSITE REVAMP We've unveiled a major website overhaul for www.fulcrum.co.uk. Take a look.

SEAMLESS OPERATIONAL ALLIANCE WITH MCNICHOLAS ANNOUNCED We've signed a formal five-year framework deal with construction partner McNicholas to boost competitiveness through increased price flexibility while simplifying customer contact points and project control and ownership. Learn more.

Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment Brendon Walsh Civic Centre, Lampton Road Director Hounslow TW3 4DN

The Planning Inspectorate Your contact: Rob Gibson 3/18 Temple Quay House Direct Line: 020-8583-5217 2 The Square E-Mail: [email protected] Bristol BS1 6PN Our ref: Your ref: Date: 5th September 2014

Dear Ms Jones

Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact) Regulations 2009 as amended -- regulations 8 and 9.

Application by the Highways Agency for an order granting development consent for the M4 junctions 3 to 12: Smart motorway

Scoping consultation and notification of the applicant's contact details and duty to make available information to the applicant if requested

I write with reference to your letter dated 12 August 2014 to Hounslow Highways reference 120808_TR010019_2649167 which has been passed to me for reply.

The Council would be obliged if you could consider the following comments.

Scheme Boundary

Figure 1. shows the scheme boundary which runs approximately from junction 12 to junction 3. The Council note that the scheme does not stop at junction 3 but proceeds east and appears to include part of the London Borough of Hounslow. The actual eastern boundary of the scheme is unclear because it is obscured by the words “Sheet 22” on the plan. For the avoidance of doubt the Council would be obliged if this figure could be reissued showing the actual eastern boundary of the scheme.

Noise and Air Quality Assessments

The Council notes that the Borough seems to have been scoped out of the air quality assessment as it is not mentioned as hosting one of the six Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) (Scoping Report paragraph 6.1.4), perhaps due to the lack of clarity in figure 1. For information the whole of the borough is an air quality management area for the pollutant nitrogen dioxide.

As part of the scheme appears to run into the Borough it is requested that the parts of the scheme that are within the London Borough of Hounslow are included within all air quality assessments undertaken.

Similarly the Council believes it is necessary to include the relevant parts of the borough in the other assessments that are to be undertaken, particularly in relation to noise and vibration.

Air Quality Significance Criteria

Table 6 page 24 outlines the proposed significance criteria for air quality.

In addition to the use of the above the Council requests that the criteria outlined within “London Councils’ Air quality and Planning Guidance” is also applied and reported. The document can be found on this link http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/policylobbying/environment/air/airqualityplanningguidance .htm

It is the Council’s view that the air quality assessment criteria outlined in the above document provide a better indication of the impact of schemes such as these.

Should you have any queries regarding the points raised in this letter please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Rob Gibson Head of Environmental Strategy

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 02 September 2014 10:49 To: Environmental Services Subject: FW: M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway.

From: YATES, DAVID Sent: 02 September 2014 10:28 To: Subject: M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway.

For the attention of Karen Jones. Letter. Your Ref: 140808_TR010019_2649167

Karen. I have received a letter with reference to the Scoping consultation and environmental statement for the above etc.

This is to confirm that the London Fire Brigade has no comment at this stage, however we are interested in this scheme as it may have an impact on our response. We are also interested in location and provision of Environmental Control Points, drainage and water supplies etc to deal with incidents including those with an environmental impact.

Thanks.

David Yates. Station Manager. Operational Resilience | Transport Planning and Liaison

LONDON FIRE BRIGADE

HQ 2nd Floor 169 Union Street SE1 0LL | Mobile 07736 123948 | Email [email protected] | Phone 0208 555 1200. X31021

Email disclaimer The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email disclaimer notice at london-fire.gov.uk/EmailDisclaimer

For fire safety advice please go to london-fire.gov.uk/YourSafety

This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

Date: 03 September 2014 Our ref: 129126 Your ref: 140808_TR010019_2649167

Customer Services Karen Jones, Hornbeam House 3/18 Eagle Wing, Crewe Business Park Temple Quay House, Electra Way Crewe 2 The Square, Cheshire Bristol, CW1 6GJ BS1 6PN T 0300 060 3900

BY EMAIL ONLY

Dear Karen Jones,

Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping consultation (Regulation 15 (3) (i) of the EIA Regulations 2011): Application by the Highways Agency for an Order Granting Development Consent for the M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

Thank you for seeking our advice on the scope of the Environmental Statement (ES) in your consultation dated 12 August 2014 which we received on the same date.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Case law1 and guidance2 has stressed the need for a full set of environmental information to be available for consideration prior to a decision being taken on whether or not to grant planning permission. Annex A to this letter provides Natural England’s advice on the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for this development.

Should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment then, in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England should be consulted again.

We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us. For any queries relating to the specific advice in this letter only please contact Mary Tomlinson on the contact details below. For any new consultations, or to provide further information on this consultation please send your correspondences to [email protected].

We really value your feedback to help us improve the service we offer. We have attached a feedback form to this letter and welcome any comments you might have about our service.

1 Harrison, J in R. v. Cornwall County Council ex parte Hardy (2001) 2 Note on Environmental Impact Assessment Directive for Local Planning Authorities Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (April 2004) available from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/sustainab ilityenvironmental/environmentalimpactassessment/noteenvironmental/ Page 1 of 8

Yours sincerely,

Mary Tomlinson Lead Adviser Sustainable Development and Regulation Thames Valley Team Tel: 07771 834 975 Email: [email protected]

Page 2 of 8

Our ref: 129126 Your ref: 140808_TR010019_2649167 Annex A – Advice related to EIA Scoping Requirements 1. General Principles Schedule 4 of the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, sets out the necessary information to assess impacts on the natural environment to be included in an ES, specifically:  A description of the development – including physical characteristics and the full land use requirements of the site during construction and operational phases.  Expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc.) resulting from the operation of the proposed development.  An assessment of alternatives and clear reasoning as to why the preferred option has been chosen.  A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors.  A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment – this should cover direct effects but also any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects. Effects should relate to the existence of the development, the use of natural resources and the emissions from pollutants. This should also include a description of the forecasting methods to predict the likely effects on the environment.  A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment.  A non-technical summary of the information.  An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the applicant in compiling the required information.

It will be important for any assessment to consider the potential cumulative effects of this proposal, including all supporting infrastructure, with other similar proposals and a thorough assessment of the ‘in combination’ effects of the proposed development with any existing developments and current applications. A full consideration of the implications of the whole scheme should be included in the ES. All supporting infrastructure should be included within the assessment.

2. Biodiversity and Geology 2.1 Ecological Aspects of an Environmental Statement Natural England advises that the potential impact of the proposal upon features of nature conservation interest and opportunities for habitat creation/enhancement should be included within this assessment in accordance with appropriate guidance on such matters. Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) have been developed by the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) and are available on their website.

EcIA is the process of identifying, quantifying and evaluating the potential impacts of defined actions on ecosystems or their components. EcIA may be carried out as part of the EIA process or to support other forms of environmental assessment or appraisal.

The National Planning Policy Framework sets out guidance in S.118 on how to take account of biodiversity interests in planning decisions and the framework that local authorities should provide to assist developers.

2.2 Internationally and Nationally Designated Sites The ES should thoroughly assess the potential for the proposal to affect designated sites. European sites (eg designated Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas) fall within the scope of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. In addition Page 3 of 8

paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires that potential Special Protection Areas, possible Special Areas of Conservation, listed or proposed Ramsar sites, and any site identified as being necessary to compensate for adverse impacts on classified, potential or possible SPAs, SACs and Ramsar sites be treated in the same way as classified sites.

Under Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 an appropriate assessment needs to be undertaken in respect of any plan or project which is (a) likely to have a significant effect on a European site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) and (b) not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site.

Should a Likely Significant Effect on a European/Internationally designated site be identified or be uncertain, the competent authority (in this case the Local Planning Authority) may need to prepare an Appropriate Assessment, in addition to consideration of impacts through the EIA process.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and sites of European or international importance (Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Ramsar sites) The development site is in close proximity to the following designated nature conservation sites:

 South West London (SWL) Waterbodies SPA and Ramsar Wetland of International Importance, and component SSSIs: Wraysbury No. 1 Gravel Pit SSSI, Staines Moor SSSI, Wraysbury & Hythe End Gravel Pits SSSI, Kempton Park Reservoirs SSSI

 Richmond Park SSSI and SAC

 Windsor Forest & Great Park SSSI and SAC

 Burnham Beeches SSSI and SAC

 Chilterns Beechwoods SAC and component SSSIs: Woods SSSI, Hollowhill & Pullingshill Woods SSSI

SSSI

SSSI

 Thames Basin Heaths SPA and component SSSIs: Broadmoor to Bagshot Woods & Heaths SSSI, Sandhurst to Owlsmoor Bogs & Heaths SSSI, Bramshill SSSI, Hazeley Heath SSSI

 Great Thrift Wood SSSI

 Hartslock Wood SSSI and SAC

SSSI

 Further information on the SSSIs and special interest features can be found at www.natureonthemap.naturalengland.org.uk. The Environmental Statement should include a full assessment of the direct and indirect effects of the development on the features of special interest within the SSSIs listed above, and should identify such mitigation measures as may be required in order to avoid, minimise or reduce any adverse significant effects.

 Natura 2000 network site conservation objectives are available on our internet site here. If any likely significant effects are identified in the EIA, then the proposal will require assessment under the Habitats Regulations. If this is that case, we recommend that there should be a separate section of the Environmental Statement to address impacts upon European and Ramsar sites entitled ‘Information for Habitats Regulations Assessment’. Page 4 of 8

Specific advice on designated sites and Air Quality – SWL Waterbodies A clear breakdown of the air quality pollutants to be emitted by the proposals, including secondary pollutants, and those generated by any traffic to and from the works, should be provided. In addition, a full assessment should be made of the impacts of the aforementioned pollutants on the sites listed above, including both the designated water bodies and the relevant water bodies linked to the designated site. Information on the effects of nutrient nitrogen and acid deposition on standing waterbodies can be found at http://www.apis.ac.uk/.

Of particular concern are the potential effects of nutrient nitrogen on macrophytes upon which gadwall and shoveler feed. An assessment of the process contribution of the proposals to emissions, in terms of critical loads for nitrogen deposition on the SPA, should be made. The background levels should be combined with the proposed contribution to emissions from the proposals, to produce a joint percentage or ‘environmental load’, also expressed as a percentage of the critical load for the SPA. The pH of the SPA and relevant water bodies, and the potential buffering capacity of the substrate, should also be taken into account, and consideration should be given to whether relevant water bodies potentially at risk from pollution are used as loafing or feeding sites (e.g. Briggs 2007). Consideration should also be given to the limiting nutrient of these freshwater bodies and evidence should be provided of this.

2.3 Regionally and Locally Important Sites The EIA will need to consider any impacts upon local wildlife and geological sites. Local Sites are identified by the local wildlife trust, geoconservation group or a local forum established for the purposes of identifying and selecting local sites. They are of county importance for wildlife or geodiversity. The Environmental Statement should therefore include an assessment of the likely impacts on the wildlife and geodiversity interests of such sites. The assessment should include proposals for mitigation of any impacts and if appropriate, compensation measures. Contact the local wildlife trust, geoconservation group or local sites body in this area for further information.

2.4 Protected Species - Species protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 The ES should assess the impact of all phases of the proposal on protected species (including, for example, great crested newts, reptiles, birds, water voles, badgers and bats). Natural England does not hold comprehensive information regarding the locations of species protected by law, but advises on the procedures and legislation relevant to such species. Records of protected species should be sought from appropriate local biological record centres, nature conservation organisations, groups and individuals; and consideration should be given to the wider context of the site for example in terms of habitat linkages and protected species populations in the wider area, to assist in the impact assessment.

The conservation of species protected by law is explained in Part IV and Annex A of Government Circular 06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System. The area likely to be affected by the proposal should be thoroughly surveyed by competent ecologists at appropriate times of year for relevant species and the survey results, impact assessments and appropriate accompanying mitigation strategies included as part of the ES.

In order to provide this information there may be a requirement for a survey at a particular time of year. Surveys should always be carried out in optimal survey time periods and to current guidance by suitably qualified and where necessary, licensed, consultants. Natural England has adopted standing advice for protected species which includes links to guidance on survey and mitigation.

2.5 Habitats and Species of Principal Importance The ES should thoroughly assess the impact of the proposals on habitats and/or species listed as ‘Habitats and Species of Principal Importance’ within the England Biodiversity List, published under

Page 5 of 8

the requirements of S41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Section 40 of the NERC Act 2006 places a general duty on all public authorities, including local planning authorities, to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Further information on this duty is available in the Defra publication ‘Guidance for Local Authorities on Implementing the Biodiversity Duty’.

Government Circular 06/2005 states that Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species and habitats, ‘are capable of being a material consideration…in the making of planning decisions’. Natural England therefore advises that survey, impact assessment and mitigation proposals for Habitats and Species of Principal Importance should be included in the ES. Consideration should also be given to those species and habitats included in the relevant Local BAP.

Natural England advises that a habitat survey (equivalent to Phase 2) is carried out on the site, in order to identify any important habitats present. In addition, ornithological, botanical and invertebrate surveys should be carried out at appropriate times in the year, to establish whether any scarce or priority species are present. The Environmental Statement should include details of:  Any historical data for the site affected by the proposal (eg from previous surveys);  Additional surveys carried out as part of this proposal;  The habitats and species present;  The status of these habitats and species (eg whether priority species or habitat);  The direct and indirect effects of the development upon those habitats and species;  Full details of any mitigation or compensation that might be required.

The development should seek if possible to avoid adverse impact on sensitive areas for wildlife within the site, and if possible provide opportunities for overall wildlife gain.

The record centre for the relevant Local Authorities should be able to provide the relevant information on the location and type of priority habitat for the area under consideration.

2.6 Contacts for Local Records Natural England does not hold local information on local sites, local landscape character and local or national biodiversity priority habitats and species. We recommend that you seek further information from the appropriate bodies (which may include the local records centre, the local wildlife trust, local geoconservation group or other recording society and a local landscape characterisation document).

3. Designated Landscapes and Landscape Character Nationally Designated Landscapes As the development site is within the setting of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), consideration should be given to the direct and indirect effects upon this designated landscape and in particular the effect upon its purpose for designation within the environmental impact assessment, as well as the content of the relevant management plan for the AONB..

Landscape and visual impacts Natural England would wish to see details of local landscape character areas mapped at a scale appropriate to the development site as well as any relevant management plans or strategies pertaining to the area. The EIA should include assessments of visual effects on the surrounding area and landscape together with any physical effects of the development, such as changes in topography. The European Landscape Convention places a duty on Local Planning Authorities to consider the impacts of landscape when exercising their functions.

The EIA should include a full assessment of the potential impacts of the development on local landscape character using landscape assessment methodologies. We encourage the use of Landscape Character Assessment (LCA), based on the good practice guidelines produced jointly by Page 6 of 8

the Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Assessment in 2013. LCA provides a sound basis for guiding, informing and understanding the ability of any location to accommodate change and to make positive proposals for conserving, enhancing or regenerating character, as detailed proposals are developed.

Natural England supports the publication Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, produced by the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Assessment and Management in 2013 (3rd edition). The methodology set out is almost universally used for landscape and visual impact assessment.

In order to foster high quality development that respects, maintains, or enhances, local landscape character and distinctiveness, Natural England encourages all new development to consider the character and distinctiveness of the area, with the siting and design of the proposed development reflecting local design characteristics and, wherever possible, using local materials. The Environmental Impact Assessment process should detail the measures to be taken to ensure the building design will be of a high standard, as well as detail of layout alternatives together with justification of the selected option in terms of landscape impact and benefit.

The assessment should also include the cumulative effect of the development with other relevant existing or proposed developments in the area. In this context Natural England advises that the cumulative impact assessment should include other proposals currently at Scoping stage. Due to the overlapping timescale of their progress through the planning system, cumulative impact of the proposed development with those proposals currently at Scoping stage would be likely to be a material consideration at the time of determination of the planning application.

The assessment should refer to the relevant National Character Areas which can be found on our website. Links for Landscape Character Assessment at a local level are also available on the same page.

4. Access and Recreation Natural England encourages any proposal to incorporate measures to help encourage people to access the countryside for quiet enjoyment. Measures such as reinstating existing footpaths together with the creation of new footpaths and bridleways are to be encouraged. Links to other green networks and, where appropriate, urban fringe areas should also be explored to help promote the creation of wider green infrastructure. Relevant aspects of local authority green infrastructure strategies should be incorporated where appropriate.

Rights of Way, Access land, Coastal access and National Trails The EIA should consider potential impacts on access land, public open land, rights of way and coastal access routes in the vicinity of the development. Consideration should also be given to the potential impacts of any National Trails. We also recommend reference to the relevant Right of Way Improvement Plans (ROWIP) to identify public rights of way within or adjacent to the proposed site that should be maintained or enhanced.

5. Air Quality Air quality in the UK has improved over recent decades but air pollution remains a significant issue; for example over 97% of sensitive habitat area in England is predicted to exceed the critical loads for ecosystem protection from atmospheric nitrogen deposition (England Biodiversity Strategy, Defra 2011). A priority action in the England Biodiversity Strategy is to reduce air pollution impacts on biodiversity. The planning system plays a key role in determining the location of developments which may give rise to pollution, either directly or from traffic generation, and hence planning decisions can have a significant impact on the quality of air, water and land. The assessment should take account of the risks of air pollution and how these can be managed or reduced. Further information on air pollution impacts and the sensitivity of different habitats/designated sites can be found on the Air Pollution Information System (www.apis.ac.uk). Further information on air pollution

Page 7 of 8

modelling and assessment can be found on the Environment Agency website.

6. Climate Change Adaptation The England Biodiversity Strategy published by Defra establishes principles for the consideration of biodiversity and the effects of climate change. The ES should reflect these principles and identify how the development’s effects on the natural environment will be influenced by climate change, and how ecological networks will be maintained. The NPPF requires that the planning system should contribute to the enhancement of the natural environment ‘by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures’ (NPPF Para 109), which should be demonstrated through the ES.

7. Cumulative and in-combination effects A full consideration of the implications of the whole scheme should be included in the ES. All supporting infrastructure should be included within the assessment.

The ES should include an impact assessment to identify, describe and evaluate the effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects and activities that are being, have been or will be carried out. The following types of projects should be included in such an assessment, (subject to available information):

a. existing completed projects; b. approved but uncompleted projects; c. ongoing activities; d. plans or projects for which an application has been made and which are under consideration by the consenting authorities; and e. plans and projects which are reasonably foreseeable, ie projects for which an application has not yet been submitted, but which are likely to progress before completion of the development and for which sufficient information is available to assess the likelihood of cumulative and in-combination effects.

8. Ancient Woodland – addition to the S41 NERC Act paragraph The S41 list includes six priority woodland habitats, which will often be ancient woodland, with all ancient semi-natural woodland in the South East falling into one or more of the six types.

Information about ancient woodland can be found in Natural England’s standing advice http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/standing-advice-ancient-woodland_tcm6-32633.pdf.

Ancient woodland is an irreplaceable resource of great importance for its wildlife, its history and the contribution it makes to our diverse landscapes. Local authorities have a vital role in ensuring its conservation, in particular through the planning system. The ES should have regard to the requirements under the NPPF (Para. 118)2 which states:

‘Planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss.’

Page 8 of 8

CRCE/NSIP Consultations T +44 (0) 1235 825278 Chilton F +44 (0) 1235 822614 Didcot Oxfordshire OX11 0RQ www.gov.uk/phe

The Planning Inspectorate Your Ref: 140808_TR010019_2649167 3/18 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House Our Ref: 140812 344 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN FAO: Karen Jones

3rd September 2014

Dear Karen,

Re: Scoping Consultation Application for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

Thank you for including Public Health England (PHE) in the scoping consultation phase of the above application. Our response focuses on health protection issues relating to chemicals and radiation. Advice offered by PHE is impartial and independent.

In order to ensure that health is fully and comprehensively considered the Environmental Statement (ES) should provide sufficient information to allow the potential impact of the development on public health to be fully assessed.

PHE has reviewed the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Report (August 2014) alongside the request for a scoping opinion and can confirm that the proposed methodology for assessing possible impacts affecting the environment and human health and the mitigation measures suggested so far appear acceptable. However, PHE notes that human health impacts will be not explicitly considered in the ES. We would be grateful if this omission can be addressed prior to your final submission.

We understand that the promoter will wish to avoid unnecessary duplication and that many issues including air quality, emissions to water, waste, contaminated land etc. will be covered elsewhere in the ES. PHE however believes the summation of relevant issues into a specific section of the report provides a focus which ensures that public health is given adequate consideration. The section should summarise key information, risk assessments, proposed mitigation measures, conclusions and residual impacts, relating to human health. Compliance with the requirements of National Policy Statements and relevant guidance and standards should also be highlighted. In terms of the level of detail to be included in an ES, we recognise that the differing nature of projects is such that their impacts will vary. Any assessments undertaken to inform the ES should be proportionate to the potential impacts of the proposal, therefore we accept that, in some circumstances particular assessments may not be relevant to an application, or that an assessment may be adequately completed using a qualitative rather than quantitative methodology. In cases where this decision is made the promoters should fully explain and justify their rationale in the submitted documentation.

The attached appendix outlines generic areas that should be addressed by all promoters when preparing ES for inclusion with an NSIP submission. We are happy to assist and discuss proposals further in the light of this advice.

Yours sincerely

Antonio Peña-Fernández Health Protection Scientist [email protected]

Please mark any correspondence for the attention of National Infrastructure Planning Administration. Appendix: PHE recommendations regarding the scoping document

General approach

The EIA should give consideration to best practice guidance such as the Government’s Good Practice Guide for EIA1. It is important that the EIA identifies and assesses the potential public health impacts of the activities at, and emissions from, the installation. Assessment should consider the development, operational, and decommissioning phases.

It is not PHE’s role to undertake these assessments on behalf of promoters as this would conflict with PHE’s role as an impartial and independent body.

We note that the information provided states that there will be three associated development projects, but that these will be the subject of separate planning consent applications. We recommend that the EIA includes consideration of the impacts of associated development and that cumulative impacts are fully accounted for.

Consideration of alternatives (including alternative sites, choice of process, and the phasing of construction) is widely regarded as good practice. Ideally, EIA should start at the stage of site and process selection, so that the environmental merits of practicable alternatives can be properly considered. Where this is undertaken, the main alternatives considered should be outlined in the ES2.

The following text covers a range of issues that PHE would expect to be addressed by the promoter. However this list is not exhaustive and the onus is on the promoter to ensure that the relevant public health issues are identified and addressed. PHE’s advice and recommendations carry no statutory weight and constitute non-binding guidance.

Receptors

The ES should clearly identify the development’s location and the location and distance from the development of off-site human receptors that may be affected by emissions from, or activities at, the development. Off-site human receptors may include people living in residential premises; people working in commercial, and industrial premises and people using transport infrastructure (such as roads and railways), recreational areas, and publicly-accessible land. Consideration should also be given to environmental receptors such as the surrounding land, watercourses, surface and groundwater, and drinking water supplies such as wells, boreholes and water abstraction points.

1 Environmental Impact Assessment: A guide to good practice and procedures - A consultation paper; 2006; Department for Communities and Local Government. Available from: http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/publications/planningandbuilding/environmentalimpactassessment 2 DCLG guidance, 1999 http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/155958.pdf

Impacts arising from construction and decommissioning

Any assessment of impacts arising from emissions due to construction and decommissioning should consider potential impacts on all receptors and describe monitoring and mitigation during these phases. Construction and decommissioning will be associated with vehicle movements and cumulative impacts should be accounted for.

We would expect the promoter to follow best practice guidance during all phases from construction to decommissioning to ensure appropriate measures are in place to mitigate any potential impact on health from emissions (point source, fugitive and traffic-related). An effective Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) (and Decommissioning Environmental Management Plan (DEMP)) will help provide reassurance that activities are well managed. The promoter should ensure that there are robust mechanisms in place to respond to any complaints of traffic-related pollution, during construction, operation, and decommissioning of the facility.

Emissions to air and water

Significant impacts are unlikely to arise from installations which employ Best Available Techniques (BAT) and which meet regulatory requirements concerning emission limits and design parameters. However, PHE has a number of comments regarding emissions in order that the EIA provides a comprehensive assessment of potential impacts.

When considering a baseline (of existing environmental quality) and in the assessment and future monitoring of impacts these:

 should include appropriate screening assessments and detailed dispersion modelling where this is screened as necessary

 should encompass all pollutants which may be emitted by the installation in combination with all pollutants arising from associated development and transport, ideally these should be considered in a single holistic assessment

 should consider the construction, operational, and decommissioning phases

 should consider the typical operational emissions and emissions from start-up, shut-down, abnormal operation and accidents when assessing potential impacts and include an assessment of worst-case impacts  should fully account for fugitive emissions

 should include appropriate estimates of background levels

 should identify cumulative and incremental impacts (i.e. assess cumulative impacts from multiple sources), including those arising from associated development, other existing and proposed development in the local area, and new vehicle movements associated with the proposed development; associated transport emissions should include consideration of non-road impacts (i.e. rail, sea, and air)

 should include consideration of local authority, Environment Agency, Defra national network, and any other local site-specific sources of monitoring data

 should compare predicted environmental concentrations to the applicable standard or guideline value for the affected medium (such as UK Air Quality Standards and Objectives and Environmental Assessment Levels)

 If no standard or guideline value exists, the predicted exposure to humans should be estimated and compared to an appropriate health-based value (a Tolerable Daily Intake or equivalent). Further guidance is provided in Annex 1

 This should consider all applicable routes of exposure e.g. include consideration of aspects such as the deposition of chemicals emitted to air and their uptake via ingestion

 should identify and consider impacts on residential areas and sensitive receptors (such as schools, nursing homes and healthcare facilities) in the area(s) which may be affected by emissions, this should include consideration of any new receptors arising from future development

Whilst screening of impacts using qualitative methodologies is common practice (e.g. for impacts arising from fugitive emissions such as dust), where it is possible to undertake a quantitative assessment of impacts then this should be undertaken.

PHE’s view is that the EIA should appraise and describe the measures that will be used to control both point source and fugitive emissions and demonstrate that standards, guideline values or health-based values will not be exceeded due to emissions from the installation, as described above. This should include consideration of any emitted pollutants for which there are no set emission limits. When assessing the potential impact of a proposed installation on environmental quality, predicted environmental concentrations should be compared to the permitted concentrations in the affected media; this should include both standards for short and long-term exposure.

Additional points specific to emissions to air When considering a baseline (of existing air quality) and in the assessment and future monitoring of impacts these:

 should include consideration of impacts on existing areas of poor air quality e.g. existing or proposed local authority Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs)

 should include modelling using appropriate meteorological data (i.e. come from the nearest suitable meteorological station and include a range of years and worst case conditions)

 should include modelling taking into account local topography

Additional points specific to emissions to water

When considering a baseline (of existing water quality) and in the assessment and future monitoring of impacts these:

 should include assessment of potential impacts on human health and not focus solely on ecological impacts

 should identify and consider all routes by which emissions may lead to population exposure (e.g. surface watercourses; recreational waters; sewers; geological routes etc.)

 should assess the potential off-site effects of emissions to groundwater (e.g. on aquifers used for drinking water) and surface water (used for drinking water abstraction) in terms of the potential for population exposure

 should include consideration of potential impacts on recreational users (e.g. from fishing, canoeing etc) alongside assessment of potential exposure via drinking water

Land quality

We would expect the promoter to provide details of any hazardous contamination present on site (including ground gas) as part of the site condition report.

Emissions to and from the ground should be considered in terms of the previous history of the site and the potential of the site, once operational, to give rise to issues. Public health impacts associated with ground contamination and/or the migration of material off-site should be assessed3 and the potential impact on nearby receptors and control and mitigation measures should be outlined.

Relevant areas outlined in the Government’s Good Practice Guide for EIA include:

3 Following the approach outlined in the section above dealing with emissions to air and water i.e. comparing predicted environmental concentrations to the applicable standard or guideline value for the affected medium (such as Soil Guideline Values)  effects associated with ground contamination that may already exist

 effects associated with the potential for polluting substances that are used (during construction / operation) to cause new ground contamination issues on a site, for example introducing / changing the source of contamination

 impacts associated with re-use of soils and waste soils, for example, re-use of site-sourced materials on-site or offsite, disposal of site-sourced materials offsite, importation of materials to the site, etc.

Waste

The EIA should demonstrate compliance with the waste hierarchy (e.g. with respect to re-use, recycling or recovery and disposal).

For wastes arising from the installation the EIA should consider:

 the implications and wider environmental and public health impacts of different waste disposal options

 disposal route(s) and transport method(s) and how potential impacts on public health will be mitigated

Other aspects

Within the EIA PHE would expect to see information about how the promoter would respond to accidents with potential off-site emissions e.g. flooding or fires, spills, leaks or releases off-site. Assessment of accidents should: identify all potential hazards in relation to construction, operation and decommissioning; include an assessment of the risks posed; and identify risk management measures and contingency actions that will be employed in the event of an accident in order to mitigate off-site effects.

The EIA should include consideration of the COMAH Regulations (Control of Major Accident Hazards) and the Major Accident Off-Site Emergency Plan (Management of Waste from Extractive Industries) (England and Wales) Regulations 2009: both in terms of their applicability to the installation itself, and the installation’s potential to impact on, or be impacted by, any nearby installations themselves subject to the these Regulations.

There is evidence that, in some cases, perception of risk may have a greater impact on health than the hazard itself. A 2009 report4, jointly published by Liverpool John Moores University and the HPA, examined health risk perception and environmental problems using a number of case studies. As a point to consider, the report suggested: “Estimation of community anxiety and stress should be included as part of every risk or impact assessment of proposed plans that involve a potential

4 Available from: http://www.cph.org.uk/showPublication.aspx?pubid=538 environmental hazard. This is true even when the physical health risks may be negligible.” PHE supports the inclusion of this information within EIAs as good practice.

Electromagnetic fields (EMF) [include for installations with associated substations and/or power lines]

There is a potential health impact associated with the electric and magnetic fields around substations and the connecting cables or lines. The following information provides a framework for considering the potential health impact.

In March 2004, the National Radiological Protection Board, NRPB (now part of PHE), published advice on limiting public exposure to electromagnetic fields. The advice was based on an extensive review of the science and a public consultation on its website, and recommended the adoption in the UK of the EMF exposure guidelines published by the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP):- http://www.hpa.org.uk/Publications/Radiation/NPRBArchive/DocumentsOfTheNRPB/ Absd1502/

The ICNIRP guidelines are based on the avoidance of known adverse effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) at frequencies up to 300 GHz (gigahertz), which includes static magnetic fields and 50 Hz electric and magnetic fields associated with electricity transmission.

PHE notes the current Government policy is that the ICNIRP guidelines are implemented in line with the terms of the EU Council Recommendation on limiting exposure of the general public (1999/519/EC): http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealth/Healthprotection/DH_4089500

For static magnetic fields, the latest ICNIRP guidelines (2009) recommend that acute exposure of the general public should not exceed 400 mT (millitesla), for any part of the body, although the previously recommended value of 40 mT is the value used in the Council Recommendation. However, because of potential indirect adverse effects, ICNIRP recognises that practical policies need to be implemented to prevent inadvertent harmful exposure of people with implanted electronic medical devices and implants containing ferromagnetic materials, and injuries due to flying ferromagnetic objects, and these considerations can lead to much lower restrictions, such as 0.5 mT as advised by the International Electrotechnical Commission.

At 50 Hz, the known direct effects include those of induced currents in the body on the central nervous system (CNS) and indirect effects include the risk of painful spark discharge on contact with metal objects exposed to the field. The ICNIRP guidelines give reference levels for public exposure to 50 Hz electric and magnetic fields, and these are respectively 5 kV m−1 (kilovolts per metre) and 100 μT (microtesla). If people are not exposed to field strengths above these levels, direct effects on the CNS should be avoided and indirect effects such as the risk of painful spark discharge will be small. The reference levels are not in themselves limits but provide guidance for assessing compliance with the basic restrictions and reducing the risk of indirect effects. Further clarification on advice on exposure guidelines for 50 Hz electric and magnetic fields is provided in the following note on the HPA website: http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/11957338050 36

The Department of Energy and Climate Change has also published voluntary code of practices which set out key principles for complying with the ICNIRP guidelines for the industry. http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/consents_planning/c odes/codes.aspx

There is concern about the possible effects of long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields, including possible carcinogenic effects at levels much lower than those given in the ICNIRP guidelines. In the NRPB advice issued in 2004, it was concluded that the studies that suggest health effects, including those concerning childhood leukaemia, could not be used to derive quantitative guidance on restricting exposure. However, the results of these studies represented uncertainty in the underlying evidence base, and taken together with people’s concerns, provided a basis for providing an additional recommendation for Government to consider the need for further precautionary measures, particularly with respect to the exposure of children to power frequency magnetic fields.

The Stakeholder Advisory Group on ELF EMFs (SAGE) was then set up to take this recommendation forward, explore the implications for a precautionary approach to extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields (ELF EMFs), and to make practical recommendations to Government. In the First Interim Assessment of the Group, consideration was given to mitigation options such as the 'corridor option' near power lines, and optimal phasing to reduce electric and magnetic fields. A Second Interim Assessment addresses electricity distribution systems up to 66 kV. The SAGE reports can be found at the following link: http://sagedialogue.org.uk/ (go to “Document Index” and Scroll to SAGE/Formal reports with recommendations)

The Agency has given advice to Health Ministers on the First Interim Assessment of SAGE regarding precautionary approaches to ELF EMFs and specifically regarding power lines and property, wiring and electrical equipment in homes: http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/12042766825 32?p=1207897920036

The evidence to date suggests that in general there are no adverse effects on the health of the population of the UK caused by exposure to ELF EMFs below the guideline levels. The scientific evidence, as reviewed by PHE, supports the view that precautionary measures should address solely the possible association with childhood leukaemia and not other more speculative health effects. The measures should be proportionate in that overall benefits outweigh the fiscal and social costs, have a convincing evidence base to show that they will be successful in reducing exposure, and be effective in providing reassurance to the public.

The Government response to the SAGE report is given in the written Ministerial Statement by Gillian Merron, then Minister of State, Department of Health, published on 16th October 2009:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm091016/wmstext/9 1016m0001.htm http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAn dGuidance/DH_107124

HPA and Government responses to the Second Interim Assessment of SAGE are available at the following links: http://www.hpa.org.uk/Publications/Radiation/HPAResponseStatementsOnRadiation Topics/rpdadvice_sage2 http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAn dGuidance/DH_130703

The above information provides a framework for considering the health impact associated with the proposed development, including the direct and indirect effects of the electric and magnetic fields as indicated above.

Liaison with other stakeholders, comments should be sought from:

 the local authority for matters relating to noise, odour, vermin and dust nuisance

 the local authority regarding any site investigation and subsequent construction (and remediation) proposals to ensure that the site could not be determined as ‘contaminated land’ under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act

 the local authority regarding any impacts on existing or proposed Air Quality Management Areas

 the Food Standards Agency for matters relating to the impact on human health of pollutants deposited on land used for growing food/ crops

 the Environment Agency for matters relating to flood risk and releases with the potential to impact on surface and groundwaters

 the Environment Agency for matters relating to waste characterisation and acceptance  the Clinical Commissioning Groups, NHS commissioning Boards and Local Planning Authority for matters relating to wider public health

Environmental Permitting

Amongst other permits and consents, the development will require an environmental permit from the Environment Agency to operate (under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010). Therefore the installation will need to comply with the requirements of best available techniques (BAT). PHE is a consultee for bespoke environmental permit applications and will respond separately to any such consultation. Annex 1

Human health risk assessment (chemical pollutants)

The points below are cross-cutting and should be considered when undertaking a human health risk assessment:

 The promoter should consider including Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) numbers alongside chemical names, where referenced in the ES

 Where available, the most recent United Kingdom standards for the appropriate media (e.g. air, water, and/or soil) and health-based guideline values should be used when quantifying the risk to human health from chemical pollutants. Where UK standards or guideline values are not available, those recommended by the European Union or World Health Organisation can be used

 When assessing the human health risk of a chemical emitted from a facility or operation, the background exposure to the chemical from other sources should be taken into account

 When quantitatively assessing the health risk of genotoxic and carcinogenic chemical pollutants PHE does not favour the use of mathematical models to extrapolate from high dose levels used in animal carcinogenicity studies to well below the observed region of a dose-response relationship. When only animal data are available, we recommend that the ‘Margin of Exposure’ (MOE) approach5 is used

5 Benford D et al. 2010. Application of the margin of exposure approach to substances in food that are genotoxic and carcinogenic. Food Chem Toxicol 48 Suppl 1: S2-24

Please reply to: Susan Sharman Planning & Development Direct line: 01628 685320 Services Email: [email protected] Your ref: 140808_TR010019_2649167

Ms. Karen Jones EIA and Land Rights Advisor The Planning Inspectorate 3/18 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol, BS1 6PN

10 September 2014

Dear Ms. Jones

Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) – Regulations 8 and 9

Application by the Highways Agency for an Order Granting Development Consent for the M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

Scoping consultation and notification of the applicant’s contact details and duty to make available information to the applicant if requested.

Thank you for your letter dated 12th August 2014 in relation to the above.

In addition to the information set out in the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report, the Royal Borough would request that the following information be taken into consideration for the scoping opinion:

Cultural Heritage:

Berkshire Archaeology is part of Reading Borough Council’s Museum and Town Hall Services and provides historic environment advice to the five unitary authorities of Bracknell Forest Council, Reading Borough Council, Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, Slough Borough Council and Wokingham Borough Council. This response relates solely to the buried archaeological heritage.

Berkshire Archaeology’s comments address the scheme proposal as a whole, including the portion of the scheme within the authority of the Royal Borough. Our comments are as follows:

1) Berkshire Archaeology welcomes the inclusion of the buried archaeological heritage within the scope of the assessment. This is entirely appropriate in view of the known and potential archaeological resource along the route. At this stage, Berkshire Archaeology strongly recommends that the buried archaeological heritage is scoped into future stages as the scheme proposals are developed and finalised. 2) It is acknowledged that much of the proposed works fall within the existing land take for the M4 and the scale of potential works that may impact on buried remains is unclear at this stage until more detailed information and proposals are developed. 3) However the scoping report acknowledges that there is a potential for impact on previously unknown buried archaeological remains. The M4 between Junctions 3 and 12 was constructed in the late 1960s and early 1970s with no formal programme of archaeological investigation. Investigations

S106CON Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, Town Hall, St Ives Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 1RF T: 01628 683800 E: [email protected] Minicom: 01628 796474 www.rbwm.gov.uk

adjacent to the M4 in the intervening period have demonstrated the richness, diversity and significance of the buried archaeological heritage in areas such as the valleys of the River Thames, Colne Valley and Colne Brook and areas between the Rivers Kennet and Loddon south of Reading. 4) Therefore detailed assessment is merited and should include consideration of the wider archaeological context of the M4 corridor in order to assess fully the potential for as yet unknown buried archaeological heritage. The assessment should consider sources above and beyond the Berkshire HER and geotechnical data and Berkshire Archaeology would be pleased to discuss other appropriate sources and datasets with the applicant’s archaeological consultants. It would also be appropriate to identify new information that has been accessioned to the Berkshire HER since the previous search was undertaken for the scoping exercise. 5) The assessment should include all works associated with the proposals that may impact on buried archaeological remains, for example temporary construction compounds, temporary soil bunds, service diversions and storage areas. 6) On the basis of the above, it is premature at this stage to propose ‘targeted watching briefs’ during construction as appropriate mitigation of the impacts on the buried archaeological heritage of this scheme. The appropriate mitigation will depend on the significance of any buried heritage assets that will be impacted and the potential harm that the development proposals will have upon them. Until more detailed information is available, it should be assumed that further information through field evaluation will be required to inform the assessment stage.

I trust this is of assistance. Should you have any queries regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact Susan Sharman, whose details are given at the top of this letter.

Yours sincerely

Suki Coe

Suki Coe Development Control Manager

S106CON Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, Town Hall, St Ives Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 1RF T: 01628 683800 E: [email protected] Minicom: 01628 796474 www.rbwm.gov.uk th 10 September 2014 Department: Customer and Community Services Directorate Contact Name: Wesley Mc Carthy Contact No: 01753 875832 Fax: 01753 875869 Email: [email protected] Our Ref: Your Ref: TR010019 Karen Jones The Planning Inspectorate Temple Quay House Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN

Dear Karen

Pre-application consultation for: M4 J3 - 12 Smart Motorway - TR010019

Your e-mail regarding the above refers

Thank you for your pre-application consultation on this nationally strategically important Smart Motorway M4 scheme. Slough Borough Council is currently awaiting further more detailed and technical information in relation to traffic forecasting, air quality, environmental noise and flooding risks, before it can formally comment on the scheme. This information should be included within the (SoCC) stage 2 consultation. Slough Borough Council will expect an Environmental Impact Assessment and ‘Environmental Statement’ to be included within the applicant’s formal application to PINS in early 2015. In absence of this information at this time, Slough Borough Council raises concerns about the sustainability and significant environmental impacts of the scheme on the residents of the Borough, with respect to traffic congestion impacts, traffic flow, air quality, environmental noise and flooding.

Yours sincerely,

Wesley Mc Carthy Acting Planning manager

Main Reception: 01753 552288 Slough Borough Council Minicom: 01753 875030 St Martin’s Place DX: 42270 Slough (west) 51 Bath Road Slough SL1 3UF

Capswood, Oxford Road, Denham, Bucks UB9 4LH Telephone: 01895 837200 DX: 40261 Gerrards Cross www.southbucks.gov.uk

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – PLANNING POLICY

Our Ref: Karen Jones Contact : Jane Griffin By email to Direct Dial : 01895 837315 E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected] Switchboard: 01895 837200 Date:9th September 2014

Dear Karen

Scoping consultation for M4 Junctions 3-12:Smart Motorway

South Bucks District Council is directly affected by the proposal. The District borders the M4 in two locations – in the east of the District near Richings Park and to the west of the District in the Taplow, Burnham and Dorney areas.

Contrary to para 4.1.1 of the scoping report this District has never been consulted. Although we believe that Bucks County Council has been. Hence as no information has been provided by the District we are not confident that the evidence included in the scoping report includes evidence collected in a sufficient and robust manner.-

Our main concerns are with regard to noise and air quality impacts. .

The District already suffers significantly from noise. Richings Park currently records ambient noise levels of 62dB LA eq (recorded by Heathrow Airport Ltd). Widening the motorway to accommodate more traffic is likely to make this worse. It is likely that our other communities such as Dorney Reach and Lake End, which are similarly close to the motorway will be equally affected.

In terms of Air Quality the scoping report does mention the Air Quality Management Area for the District but in a small District which has the M25, M4 and M40 passing through, the air quality can only get worse. This is having an adverse effect on the biodiversity of the District and in particular on Burnham Beeches SAC (2km north of the M4) which is not mentioned in any of the documentation. There is substantial evidence that the beech trees within the SAC area are being adversely impacted by the deterioration in air quality. It is difficult to see how this could be mitigated.

In addition it is considered that the Scoping Report should mention other transport schemes such as Western Rail Access to Heathrow which will tunnel under the M4 at Richings Park and the potential for the HS2 Heathrow Spur if Heathrow expansion is approved.

Other sites that may be noteworthy but do not appear to have been included are the redevelopment of Taplow Mill which will provide 250 new homes (application recently submitted based on adopted SPD) and the Historic Park of Burnham Abbey adjacent to the spur road.

Yours faithfully

Jane Griffin Principal Planning Officer – Planning Policy

Chief Executive : Alan Goodrum Directors: Jim Burness (Resources) Bob Smith (Services)

Capswood, Oxford Road, Denham, Bucks UB9 4LH Telephone: 01895 837200 DX: 40261 Gerrards Cross www.southbucks.gov.uk

Chief Executive : Alan Goodrum Directors: Jim Burness (Resources) Bob Smith (Services)

140808_TR010019_2649167

12 September 201410 September 2014

Direct Line: 01634 276 005 Email: [email protected]

Karen Jones – EIA and Land Rights Advisor on behalf of the Secretary of State

3/18 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN

Dear Karen,

Thank you for making South East Water aware of the scoping consultation for an application by the Highways Agency for an order granting Development Consent for M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway (Application Ref: 140808_TR010019_2649167).

Whilst we support the overall objectives of the scheme to relieve congestion and improve journey times between junctions 3 to 12 of the M4, we are concerned about the impact the proposals could have on some of the groundwater sources we rely upon in order to supply public drinking water. We would appreciate the opportunity to further discuss and be engaged in the consultation process around these proposals, particularly concerning the M4 bridge at Monkey Island Lane.

The proposal includes construction activities in a designated Groundwater Protection Zone and has significant potential risk to public water supplies from our Bray site, and potentially our nearby Beenhams Heath site. These risks needs to be properly considered and adequately addressed both within the environmental impact assessment and wider project planning. We would welcome a separate Hydrogeological Impact Assessment to be made available for consultation prior to granting of the work.

The M4 bridge at Money Island Lane divides the northern and southern well fields of our Bray Gravel groundwater borehole sources. These boreholes abstract water from the river gravels and are relatively shallow, ranging between 10-15 metres deep. We are licenced by the Environment Agency to abstract up to 27 megalitres of water per day from these boreholes which we then treat and put into our pipe network to supply drinking water to around 400,000 people in the Bray, Farnborough, Aldershot, Frimley Green and Fleet areas.

The proposed widening and / or removal and construction of a new bridge (unspecified within the document for Monkey Island Lane) has the potential to adversely impact groundwater and our ability to provide a safe and reliable public water supply in the following ways:

 There is a high risk that the proposed construction works would increase turbidity in the groundwater at the Bray Gravels site to the point it falls outside the tolerances of our water treatment works and so fails the standards set for drinking water by our regulators, the

TELEPHONE EMERGENCY LINE South East Water Ltd Rocfort Road Registered in England No. 2679874 0333 000 1122 03330 000 365 Snodland Registered Office: Rocfort Road, Snodland, EMAIL WEBSITE Kent ME6 5AH Kent ME6 5AH [email protected] www.southeastwater.co.uk ISO 9001 Certified ISO 14001 Certified OHSAS 18001 Certified South East Water is an Investor in People

Drinking Water Inspectorate. This could prevent us from supplying customer’s drinking water from this key site, one of our largest groundwater sources.

 Relocation of surface water drainage from the M4 at this location could potentially increase the risk of water quality contamination at the site.

 Our abstractions at Beenhams Heath between Junction 9 and 10 may also be impacted if surface water drainage is modified.

As mentioned, we would appreciate the opportunity to further discuss and be engaged in the consultation process around these proposals, particularly concerning the M4 bridge at Monkey Island Lane. The proposals have the potential to adversely impact a Groundwater Protection Zone and public water supply and these risks needs to be properly considered and adequately addressed both within the environmental impact assessment and wider project planning.

South East Water looks forward to hearing more about this proposed project, and working together with yourselves and the applicant to ensure groundwater protection and the public water supply is safe-guarded in future.

Yours sincerely,

Debbie Wilkinson Water Resource Planner

TELEPHONE EMERGENCY LINE South East Water Ltd Rocfort Road Registered in England No. 2679874 0333 000 1122 03330 000 365 Snodland Registered Office: Rocfort Road, Snodland, EMAIL WEBSITE Kent ME6 5AH Kent ME6 5AH [email protected] www.southeastwater.co.uk ISO 9001 Certified ISO 14001 Certified OHSAS 18001 Certified South East Water is an Investor in People

From: Clapham, Matthew [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 04 September 2014 15:08 To: Environmental Services Subject: M4 J3 – 12 Smart Motorway - TR010019

Dear Sir / Madam

I refer to your e-mail correspondence below.

I am able to confirm that this Authority has no comments to make on this proposal.

I hope this information has been of use to you. If you require any further information, please let me know. This advice is informal and without prejudice to any formal decision of the Council as the Local Planning Authority.

Kind regards

Matthew Clapham Senior Planning Officer

Spelthorne Borough Council Council Offices, Knowle Green, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 1XB 01784 446349 Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Email: [email protected] Web: www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate (Planning Inspectorate casework and appeals) Web: www.planningportal.gov.uk/infrastructure (Planning Inspectorate's National Infrastructure Planning portal) Twitter: @PINSgov This communication does not constitute legal advice. Please view our Information Charter before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

My Spelthorne - providing Spelthorne Council and public service information relevant to you

Please visit our brand new website at www.spelthorne.gov.uk to see the new things you can find and do.

************************************************************************************ We scan every e-mail for viruses but it is your responsibility to carry out any checks on receipt. This e-mail is for the addressee only. ************************************************************************************

Think before you print.

This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

From: Jacky Major [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 10 September 2014 12:05 To: Environmental Services Subject: M4 Junctions 3 to 12 : Smart Motorway

For the attention of Karen Jones

With reference to a letter from The Planning Inspectorate dated 12 August 2014, concerning an Application by the Highways Agency for an Order Granting Development Consent for the M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway. Tilehurst Parish Council would like to submit the following comments towards the scoping opinion;

• Concerns were raised over the loss of the hard shoulder, particularly as there will be very few “pull in areas” for motorists who find themselves in difficulty. • Adequate signage needs to be installed in order for motorists to be sufficiently advised of when and where the hard shoulder can be used, particularly for merging purposes.

Kind Regards Jacky

Jacky Major Clerk of the Council Tilehurst Parish Council Parish Office Highview, Calcot Reading, RG31 4XD

Tel: 0118 941 8833 [email protected]

The information contained in this email may be confidential and may also be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient then please delete forthwith.

This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

WALTHAM ST LAWRENCE PARISH COUNCIL

Clerk to the Council Sally Burtenshaw Tele: e.mail:

8 September 2014 e mailed & posted

Your Ref: 140808_TR010019_2649167

Karen Jones EIA and Land Rights Advisor The Planning Inspectorate 3/18 Eagle Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN

Dear Ms Jones

Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) – Regulations 8 and 9

Application by the Highways Agency for an Order Granting Development Consent for the M4 Junctions 3 to 12 Smart Motorway

Scoping consultation and notification of the applicant’s contact details and duty to make available information to the applicant if requested

Includes in the Environmental statement should be:

1. Effect of additional noise nuisance by constant use of nearside hard shoulder adjoining Shurlock Row village and Conservation Area and need to lay a porous road surface. 2. Effect on Shurlock Row residents and surrounding countryside of light pollution arising out of overhead lighting on this part of our very rural parish.

Yours sincerely,

Sally Burtenshaw Clerk Waltham St Lawrence Parish Council

From: Mike Dunstan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 15 August 2014 16:20 To: Environmental Services Subject: M4 Junctions 3 to 12: Smart Motorway

Dear Karen

Thank you for your letter dated 12th August regarding the scoping consultation for the above project.

I have been instructed to advise you that Wokingham Town Council does not wish to comment on this matter.

Regards

Mike Dunstan Planning & Transportation Officer

Wokingham Town Council Town Hall Market Place Wokingham RG40 1AS

Tel: 0118 978 3185 Direct Tel: 0118 974 0885 Fax: 0118 979 2335 www.wokingham-tc.gov.uk

The Mayor's Charity of the year is Barnados (High Close School, Wokingham) – to help them raise money for sensory room equipment

Visit www.wokingham-tc.gov.uk for more information about Town Council events and services including the following in August: WW1 Centenary related events, Theatre in the Park, Sunny Saturdays, the Farmers' Market and of course the weekly markets.

The contents of this message and any attachments to it are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received this message in error, you should delete it from your system immediately and advise the sender.

To any recipient of this message within Wokingham Town Council, unless otherwise stated you should consider this message and attachments as " CONFIDENTIAL

This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

APPENDIX 3 Presentation of the Environmental Statement

APPENDIX 3

PRESENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (SI 2264) (as amended) sets out the information which must be provided for an application for a development consent order (DCO) for nationally significant infrastructure under the Planning Act 2008. Where required, this includes an environmental statement. Applicants may also provide any other documents considered necessary to support the application. Information which is not environmental information need not be replicated or included in the ES. An environmental statement (ES) is described under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (SI 2263) (as amended) (the EIA Regulations) as a statement:

a) ‘that includes such of the information referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 4 as is reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development and of any associated development and which the applicant can, having regard in particular to current knowledge and methods of assessment, reasonably be required to compile; but b) that includes at least the information required in Part 2 of Schedule 4’. (EIA Regulations Regulation 2)

The purpose of an ES is to ensure that the environmental effects of a proposed development are fully considered, together with the economic or social benefits of the development, before the development consent application under the Planning Act 2008 is determined. The ES should be an aid to decision making.

The Secretary of State advises that the ES should be laid out clearly with a minimum amount of technical terms and should provide a clear objective and realistic description of the likely significant impacts of the proposed development. The information should be presented so as to be comprehensible to the specialist and non-specialist alike. The Secretary of State recommends that the ES be concise with technical information placed in appendices.

ES Indicative Contents

The Secretary of State emphasises that the ES should be a ‘stand alone’ document in line with best practice and case law. The EIA Regulations Schedule 4, Parts 1 and 2, set out the information for inclusion in environmental statements.

Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations states this information includes:

‘17. Description of the development, including in particular—

Appendix 3

(a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole development and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases; (b) a description of the main characteristics of the production processes, for instance, nature and quantity of the materials used; (c) an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc) resulting from the operation of the proposed development.

18. An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant and an indication of the main reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental effects.

19. A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship between the above factors.

20. A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment, which should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the development, resulting from: (a) the existence of the development; (b) the use of natural resources; (c) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste, and the description by the applicant of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment.

21. A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment.

22. A non-technical summary of the information provided under paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Part.

23. An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the applicant in compiling the required information’.

EIA Regulations Schedule 4 Part 1

The content of the ES must include as a minimum those matters set out in Schedule 4 Part 2 of the EIA Regulations. This includes the consideration of ‘the main alternatives studied by the applicant’ which the Secretary of State recommends could be addressed as a separate chapter in the ES. Part 2 is included below for reference:

Appendix 3

Schedule 4 Part 2

 A description of the development comprising information on the site, design and size of the development  A description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects  The data required to identify and assess the main effects which the development is likely to have on the environment  An outline of the main alternatives studies by the applicant and an indication of the main reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking into account the environmental effects, and  A non-technical summary of the information provided [under the four paragraphs above].

Traffic and transport is not specified as a topic for assessment under Schedule 4; although in line with good practice the Secretary of State considers it is an important consideration per se, as well as being the source of further impacts in terms of air quality and noise and vibration.

Balance

The Secretary of State recommends that the ES should be balanced, with matters which give rise to a greater number or more significant impacts being given greater prominence. Where few or no impacts are identified, the technical section may be much shorter, with greater use of information in appendices as appropriate.

The Secretary of State considers that the ES should not be a series of disparate reports and stresses the importance of considering inter- relationships between factors and cumulative impacts.

Scheme Proposals

The scheme parameters will need to be clearly defined in the draft DCO and therefore in the accompanying ES which should support the application as described. The Secretary of State is not able to entertain material changes to a project once an application is submitted. The Secretary of State draws the attention of the applicant to the DCLG and the Planning Inspectorate’s published advice on the preparation of a draft DCO and accompanying application documents.

Flexibility

The Secretary of State acknowledges that the EIA process is iterative, and therefore the proposals may change and evolve. For example, there may be changes to the scheme design in response to consultation. Such changes should be addressed in the ES. However, at the time of the application for a DCO, any proposed scheme parameters should not be so wide ranging as to represent effectively different schemes.

Appendix 3

It is a matter for the applicant, in preparing an ES, to consider whether it is possible to assess robustly a range of impacts resulting from a large number of undecided parameters. The description of the proposed development in the ES must not be so wide that it is insufficiently certain to comply with requirements of paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations.

The Rochdale Envelope principle (see R v Rochdale MBC ex parte Tew (1999) and R v Rochdale MBC ex parte Milne (2000)) is an accepted way of dealing with uncertainty in preparing development applications. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 9 ‘Rochdale Envelope’ which is available on the Advice Note’s page of the National Infrastructure Planning website.

The applicant should make every attempt to narrow the range of options and explain clearly in the ES which elements of the scheme have yet to be finalised and provide the reasons. Where some flexibility is sought and the precise details are not known, the applicant should assess the maximum potential adverse impacts the project could have to ensure that the project as it may be constructed has been properly assessed.

The ES should be able to confirm that any changes to the development within any proposed parameters would not result in significant impacts not previously identified and assessed. The maximum and other dimensions of the proposed development should be clearly described in the ES, with appropriate justification. It will also be important to consider choice of materials, colour and the form of the structures and of any buildings. Lighting proposals should also be described.

Scope

The Secretary of State recommends that the physical scope of the study areas should be identified under all the environmental topics and should be sufficiently robust in order to undertake the assessment. The extent of the study areas should be on the basis of recognised professional guidance, whenever such guidance is available. The study areas should also be agreed with the relevant consultees and local authorities and, where this is not possible, this should be stated clearly in the ES and a reasoned justification given. The scope should also cover the breadth of the topic area and the temporal scope, and these aspects should be described and justified.

Physical Scope

In general the Secretary of State recommends that the physical scope for the EIA should be determined in the light of:

 the nature of the proposal being considered  the relevance in terms of the specialist topic

Appendix 3

 the breadth of the topic  the physical extent of any surveys or the study area, and  the potential significant impacts.

The Secretary of State recommends that the physical scope of the study areas should be identified for each of the environmental topics and should be sufficiently robust in order to undertake the assessment. This should include at least the whole of the application site, and include all offsite works. For certain topics, such as landscape and transport, the study area will need to be wider. The extent of the study areas should be on the basis of recognised professional guidance and best practice, whenever this is available, and determined by establishing the physical extent of the likely impacts. The study areas should also be agreed with the relevant consultees and, where this is not possible, this should be stated clearly in the ES and a reasoned justification given.

Breadth of the Topic Area

The ES should explain the range of matters to be considered under each topic and this may respond partly to the type of project being considered. If the range considered is drawn narrowly then a justification for the approach should be provided.

Temporal Scope

The assessment should consider:

 environmental impacts during construction works  environmental impacts on completion/operation of the proposed development  where appropriate, environmental impacts a suitable number of years after completion of the proposed development (for example, in order to allow for traffic growth or maturing of any landscape proposals), and  environmental impacts during decommissioning.

In terms of decommissioning, the Secretary of State acknowledges that the further into the future any assessment is made, the less reliance may be placed on the outcome. However, the purpose of such a long term assessment, as well as to enable the decommissioning of the works to be taken into account, is to encourage early consideration as to how structures can be taken down. The purpose of this is to seek to minimise disruption, to re-use materials and to restore the site or put it to a suitable new use. The Secretary of State encourages consideration of such matters in the ES.

The Secretary of State recommends that these matters should be set out clearly in the ES and that the suitable time period for the assessment should be agreed with the relevant statutory consultees.

Appendix 3

The Secretary of State recommends that throughout the ES a standard terminology for time periods should be defined, such that for example, ‘short term’ always refers to the same period of time.

Baseline

The Secretary of State recommends that the baseline should describe the position from which the impacts of the proposed development are measured. The baseline should be chosen carefully and, whenever possible, be consistent between topics. The identification of a single baseline is to be welcomed in terms of the approach to the assessment, although it is recognised that this may not always be possible.

The Secretary of State recommends that the baseline environment should be clearly explained in the ES, including any dates of surveys, and care should be taken to ensure that all the baseline data remains relevant and up to date.

For each of the environmental topics, the data source(s) for the baseline should be set out together with any survey work undertaken with the dates. The timing and scope of all surveys should be agreed with the relevant statutory bodies and appropriate consultees, wherever possible.

The baseline situation and the proposed development should be described within the context of the site and any other proposals in the vicinity.

Identification of Impacts and Method Statement

Legislation and Guidelines

In terms of the EIA methodology, the Secretary of State recommends that reference should be made to best practice and any standards, guidelines and legislation that have been used to inform the assessment. This should include guidelines prepared by relevant professional bodies.

In terms of other regulatory regimes, the Secretary of State recommends that relevant legislation and all permit and licences required should be listed in the ES where relevant to each topic. This information should also be submitted with the application in accordance with the APFP Regulations.

In terms of assessing the impacts, the ES should approach all relevant planning and environmental policy – local, regional and national (and where appropriate international) – in a consistent manner.

Assessment of Effects and Impact Significance

The EIA Regulations require the identification of the ‘likely significant effects of the development on the environment’ (Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 20).

Appendix 3

As a matter of principle, the Secretary of State applies the precautionary approach to follow the Court’s4 reasoning in judging ‘significant effects’. In other words ‘likely to affect’ will be taken as meaning that there is a probability or risk that the proposed development will have an effect, and not that a development will definitely have an effect.

The Secretary of State considers it is imperative for the ES to define the meaning of ‘significant’ in the context of each of the specialist topics and for significant impacts to be clearly identified. The Secretary of State recommends that the criteria should be set out fully and that the ES should set out clearly the interpretation of ‘significant’ in terms of each of the EIA topics. Quantitative criteria should be used where available. The Secretary of State considers that this should also apply to the consideration of cumulative impacts and impact inter-relationships.

The Secretary of State recognises that the way in which each element of the environment may be affected by the proposed development can be approached in a number of ways. However it considers that it would be helpful, in terms of ease of understanding and in terms of clarity of presentation, to consider the impact assessment in a similar manner for each of the specialist topic areas. The Secretary of State recommends that a common format should be applied where possible.

Inter-relationships between environmental factors

The inter-relationship between aspects of the environments likely to be significantly affected is a requirement of the EIA Regulations (see Schedule 4 Part 1 of the EIA Regulations). These occur where a number of separate impacts, e.g. noise and air quality, affect a single receptor such as fauna.

The Secretary of State considers that the inter-relationships between factors must be assessed in order to address the environmental impacts of the proposal as a whole. This will help to ensure that the ES is not a series of separate reports collated into one document, but rather a comprehensive assessment drawing together the environmental impacts of the proposed development. This is particularly important when considering impacts in terms of any permutations or parameters to the proposed development.

Cumulative Impacts

The potential cumulative impacts with other major developments will need to be identified, as required by the Directive. The significance of such impacts should be shown to have been assessed against the baseline position (which would include built and operational development). In

4 See Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels v Staatssecretris van Landbouw (Waddenzee Case No C 127/02/2004)

Appendix 3

assessing cumulative impacts, other major development should be identified through consultation with the local planning authorities and other relevant authorities on the basis of those that are:

 projects that are under construction  permitted application(s) not yet implemented  submitted application(s) not yet determined  all refusals subject to appeal procedures not yet determined  projects on the National Infrastructure’s programme of projects, and  projects identified in the relevant development plan (and emerging development plans - with appropriate weight being given as they move closer to adoption) recognising that much information on any relevant proposals will be limited. Details should be provided in the ES, including the types of development, location and key aspects that may affect the EIA and how these have been taken into account as part of the assessment.

The Secretary of State recommends that offshore wind farms should also take account of any offshore licensed and consented activities in the area, for the purposes of assessing cumulative effects, through consultation with the relevant licensing/consenting bodies.

For the purposes of identifying any cumulative effects with other developments in the area, applicants should also consult consenting bodies in other EU states to assist in identifying those developments (see commentary on Transboundary Effects below).

Related Development

The ES should give equal prominence to any development which is related with the proposed development to ensure that all the impacts of the proposal are assessed.

The Secretary of State recommends that the applicant should distinguish between the proposed development for which development consent will be sought and any other development. This distinction should be clear in the ES.

Alternatives

The ES must set out an outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant and provide an indication of the main reasons for the applicant’s choice, taking account of the environmental effect (Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 18).

Matters should be included, such as inter alia alternative design options and alternative mitigation measures. The justification for the final choice and evolution of the scheme development should be made clear. Where other sites have been considered, the reasons for the final choice should be addressed.

Appendix 3

The Secretary of State advises that the ES should give sufficient attention to the alternative forms and locations for the off-site proposals, where appropriate, and justify the needs and choices made in terms of the form of the development proposed and the sites chosen.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures may fall into certain categories namely: avoid; reduce; compensate or enhance (see Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 21); and should be identified as such in the specialist topics. Mitigation measures should not be developed in isolation as they may relate to more than one topic area. For each topic, the ES should set out any mitigation measures required to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects, and to identify any residual effects with mitigation in place. Any proposed mitigation should be discussed and agreed with the relevant consultees.

The effectiveness of mitigation should be apparent. Only mitigation measures which are a firm commitment and can be shown to be deliverable should be taken into account as part of the assessment.

It would be helpful if the mitigation measures proposed could be cross referred to specific provisions and/or requirements proposed within the draft development consent order. This could be achieved by means of describing the mitigation measures proposed either in each of the specialist reports or collating these within a summary section on mitigation.

The Secretary of State advises that it is considered best practice to outline in the ES, the structure of the environmental management and monitoring plan and safety procedures which will be adopted during construction and operation and may be adopted during decommissioning.

Cross References and Interactions

The Secretary of State recommends that all the specialist topics in the ES should cross reference their text to other relevant disciplines. Interactions between the specialist topics is essential to the production of a robust assessment, as the ES should not be a collection of separate specialist topics, but a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposal and how these impacts can be mitigated.

As set out in EIA Regulations Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 23, the ES should include an indication of any technical difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the applicant in compiling the required information.

Consultation

The Secretary of State recommends that any changes to the scheme design in response to consultation should be addressed in the ES.

Appendix 3

It is recommended that the applicant provides preliminary environmental information (PEI) (this term is defined in the EIA Regulations under regulation 2 ‘Interpretation’) to the local authorities.

Consultation with the local community should be carried out in accordance with the SoCC which will state how the applicant intends to consult on the preliminary environmental information (PEI). This PEI could include results of detailed surveys and recommended mitigation actions. Where effective consultation is carried out in accordance with Section 47 of the Planning Act, this could usefully assist the applicant in the EIA process – for example the local community may be able to identify possible mitigation measures to address the impacts identified in the PEI. Attention is drawn to the duty upon applicants under Section 50 of the Planning Act to have regard to the guidance on pre-application consultation.

Transboundary Effects

The Secretary of State recommends that consideration should be given in the ES to any likely significant effects on the environment of another Member State of the European Economic Area. In particular, the Secretary of State recommends consideration should be given to discharges to the air and water and to potential impacts on migratory species and to impacts on shipping and fishing areas.

The Applicant’s attention is also drawn to the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 12 ‘Development with significant transboundary impacts consultation’ which is available on the Advice Notes Page of the National Infrastructure Planning website

Summary Tables

The Secretary of State recommends that in order to assist the decision making process, the applicant may wish to consider the use of tables:

Table X to identify and collate the residual impacts after mitigation on the basis of specialist topics, inter-relationships and cumulative impacts.

Table XX to demonstrate how the assessment has taken account of this Opinion and other responses to consultation.

Table XXX to set out the mitigation measures proposed, as well as assisting the reader, the Secretary of State considers that this would also enable the applicant to cross refer mitigation to specific provisions proposed to be included within the draft Development Consent Order.

Table XXXX to cross reference where details in the HRA (where one is provided) such as descriptions of sites and their locations, together with any mitigation or compensation measures, are to be found in the ES.

Appendix 3

Terminology and Glossary of Technical Terms

The Secretary of State recommends that a common terminology should be adopted. This will help to ensure consistency and ease of understanding for the decision making process. For example, ‘the site’ should be defined and used only in terms of this definition so as to avoid confusion with, for example, the wider site area or the surrounding site.

A glossary of technical terms should be included in the ES.

Presentation

The ES should have all of its paragraphs numbered, as this makes referencing easier as well as accurate.

Appendices must be clearly referenced, again with all paragraphs numbered.

All figures and drawings, photographs and photomontages should be clearly referenced. Figures should clearly show the proposed site application boundary.

Bibliography

A bibliography should be included in the ES. The author, date and publication title should be included for all references. All publications referred to within the technical reports should be included.

Non Technical Summary

The EIA Regulations require a Non Technical Summary (EIA Regulations Schedule 4 Part 1 paragraph 22). This should be a summary of the assessment in simple language. It should be supported by appropriate figures, photographs and photomontages.

Appendix 3